GREAT-42 CC 21-413 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS (GREAT-42)
The community deserves answers to questions concerning this proposed agreement.
A number of other U.S. cities have rescinded their HSI cooperative agreements since first signing them, citing incidents of "inadvertent involvement" of local police involvement in civil immigration enforcement:
Santa Cruz, CA https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/23/santa-cruz-police-homeland-security-raids-immigration-status-not-gang-related/e)
Oakland, CA (City Council rescinded the agreement within a year of signing) https://www.courthousenews.com/oakland-police-cut-ties-immigration-enforcement/
San Gabriel, Pasadena, CA https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9cb0eda5-8512-4812-9d46-0b07c60a000b
Santa Monica, CA https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2017/March-2017/03_17_2017_Santa_Monica_Police_Ends_Agreement_with_Federal_Immigration_Authorities.html
Birmingham, AL City Council is postponing decision-making on a similar proposal due to community concerns (their foreign-born population-at 3%-is much smaller than Maui's). https://birminghamwatch.org/birmingham-delays-ice-agreement-wants-to-assure-it-wont-lead-to-police-involvement-in-deportations/
Immigrant advocacy groups like the National Immigrant Justice Center state that even with cooperative "customs enforcement" agreements like this one, a "clear guilt by association effect is present, harmful, and inhibiting cooperation with local law enforcement, and frustrating public safety goals". Further, "The threat of deportation alone puts pressure and stress on immigrant communities. Fear of being targeted becomes an everyday occurrence. Workers may experience employment abuse, with limited legal recourse, and are more likely to be part of an informal economy with no access to medical insurance for themselves and their families. Researchers refer to these stressors as “extrafamilial acculturative stress,” and find it is associated with poor physical and emotional health in both parents and children." ( "Disentangling Local Law Enforcement from Federal Immigration Enforcement”).
49% of Maui's agricultural workers and over 35% of Maui's Tourism, Recreation, and Hospitality workers are foreign-born. Cooperative agreements like the one proposed contribute to an erosion of trust and present a threat to community safety; if an immigrant or COFA migrant is a victim, or even a witness to a crime, they may not call the police for help or to report if they think the police officer, or might be, a deputized ICE officer.
These are questions we would like addressed:
• Which duties will be assigned to designated MPD officers who are "deputized” and trained by ICE/HSI?
• When are MPD officers authorized to ask suspects, victims, and witnesses questions about their immigration status, social security number, and/or place of birth?
• What level of information sharing will MPD agree to with ICE/HSI (fingerprinting, names, addresses, etc. of "suspects") and how will you prevent the information of innocent residents being shared with the federal agency?
• Will federal agents be allowed entry into local police facilities (offices and jails)?
• Does the Council have a plan for oversight, accountability and transparency?
• Has the Council analyzed the risks vs. benefits for the immigrant community under this agreement?
• Will Maui taxpayer’s money be used to carry out federal ICE duties?
The community has not heard sufficient responses to these questions.
The Legal Clinic (Honolulu-based nonprofit with clients who are foreign-born residents of Maui)
My name is Keisa Liu and I am writing in opposition of GREAT-42: AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS.
As an advocate for vulnerable populations, it would make sense that I would oppose this contract. There is lots of evidence that shows these contracts protect officers who use it for racial profiling and intimidating vulnerable populations such as immigrants and the houseless.
But as the Co-Vice Chair of the newly formed MPD Multicultural Advisory Counsel, I do feel its my work to ask how a contract like this can benefit our community. I spoke with Chief Pelletier and asked how this contract would impact us in Maui County. There are benefits to receiving this federal funding and support. I am confident he could outline and implement a plan that would allow us to use the funds to tackle issues of drug and human trafficking in Maui County without further oppressing our vulnerable populations.
But even then, there hasn’t been enough trust built yet for us to feel safe or believe his words. He will have an uphill battle proving himself.
For me, I personally have an issue with who will have control over the contract. The way it is written, the Mayor will be able to amend the contract at-will without the need for vetting from the Council. I do not trust that such out-of-touch leadership would make amendments that center the residents of Maui County based on what I have experienced.
The Mayor consistently puts the tourism industry above the health and safety of his constituents. As COVID numbers rose, the Mayor supported large gatherings that supported businesses while simultaneously backing the narrative that our rise in numbers was because of “community spread”. He referred to the Amala residents as “jackasses” in a meeting when I asked him if the services he was boasting about would be available for them.
As for Assistant Chief Esperanza, the person named MPD point of contact, I also have serious concerns. That name came up repeatedly when I spoke with community members and officers about the MPD corruption and hostile work environment. I am not interested in granting autonomy and power to an individual with questionable integrity.
It is for these reasons that I am hesitant about supporting this contract.
Michael Molina, Chair
Maui County Council
Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee
200 South High Street, 8th Floor
Wailuku, HI 96793
Date: February 1, 2022
Re: GREAT 42 – AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREMENT WITH THE US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS
Dear Chair Molina:
I have been a licensed attorney since 2013 and am currently the principal in a firm that provides representation in all types of immigration and nationality cases. Prior to this, I was the Director of the Immigrant Services Division for the County of Maui. My practice is exclusively immigration related and I have appeared before all the applicable agencies in this field including the Immigration Court (EOIR/ US DOJ); the Board of Immigration Appeals; the Department of Homeland Security(“DHS”) (USCIS and USICE) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have testified as an expert in the second circuit as well as providing in-service training and immigration law training to numerous agencies and non-profits including the Family Court Bar of the HSBA, the Maui County Public Defender’s Office, the Hawaii State Judiciary and the Maui County Council.
I am the Vice-Chair of the Hawaii Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and I sit on the Board of Directors of the Hawaii Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, although I do not speak on their behalf today.
I have already submitted written testimony in opposition to this proposed MOU. I stand by the testimony and will not take up the committee’s valuable time other than to briefly reiterate my reasons for opposition. Many of my, and other advocates, questions remain unanswered and our concerns unaddressed.
1. Erosion of trust and threat to community safety:
In Hawaii, close to 20% of the population are “immigrants (foreign born) with close to 60,000 families (although actual data is difficult to produce accurately) in “mixed status” families in which one or more people may be undocumented.
Perhaps the most important collateral effect of these agreements is that if a person is a victim, or even a witness to a crime, they may not call the police for help or to report if they think the police officer, or might be, a deputized ICE officer.
Trust between local police and the immigrant community is already hard won and fragile. Many of us have worked hard over the past decades to build that trust through the Domestic Violence Task Force, outreach and community building efforts and that trust can easily be eroded and destroyed.
In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the nations premier law enforcement association stated:
Local Police agencies depend on the cooperation of immigrants, legal and otherwise, in solving all sorts of crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families.
In 2019, the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), a group of police chiefs from th largest police forces in the US and Canada found that “Without assurances that contact with the police would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard-won trust communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear.
2. These agreements can lead to constitutional violations and violations of individual civil rights:
Department of Justice investigations of two different County Sheriff’s Offices in Arizona and North Carolina with 287G agreements, similar to this one, revealed widespread constitutional violations including racial profiling, illegal stops and other civil rights violations. (Source: American Immigration Council)
3. These agreements can lead to arrests of individuals without criminal histories
These agreements have a collateral effect of leading to the targeting and arrest of individuals who have no criminal history for nothing other than status offense. Each one of these arrests represents trauma to a family and the community.
A study by the UNC Chapel Hill revealed that 57% of arrests stemming from a 287G agreement in Gaston County were of individuals with no criminal conviction and many of those resulted in depurations which effectively spearted and destroyed families. (Source: Migration Policy Institute)
4. These agreements can be expensive for localities
The Maricopa County Program that was shut down, referenced in Number 2 above created a $1.3-million-dollar deficit. Harris County Texas: $675,000. Mecklenburg County North Carolina: $5.3 million. Alamance County: $4.8 million. Prince William County: $6.4 million.
(Source: Brookings Institution)
5. ICE does not provide sufficient guidance, direction, supervision or support:
A Government Accountabilility Office report from January of 2021 found that there were insufficient performance goals to measure success and concluded that there was no effective oversight for these types of programs as a result. The report also found that there was no standard to determine compliance with the MOU.
I have reviewed the proposed MOU that is before the council and these are the specific questions that I have about it:
A. Are these agreements legal or do they violate the anti-commandeering clause of the 10th amendment?
B. What safeguards are there that "deputized" MPD officers will not ask suspects, victims and witnesses questions about their place of birth, status or social security numbers?
C. This may have a negative impact on community policing as victims and witnesses in immigrant communities will be less likely to report crimes if they know the MPD officer is, or may be, a deputized ICE officer. What assurances and safeguard are there for the immigrant community that they will be safe and not targeted?
D. Does the council have a plan for oversight, accountability and transparency?
E. Can we see ICE Form 73-001 (Its not available online)? What duties will be assigned to designated MPD officers who are "deputized?"
F. The language of the MOU mentions "Abuse of HSI cross designation” What would that look like and what is the reporting and accountability plan to ensure that such abuses do not occur?
G. Item #3 if the MOU says that deputized officers can "enforce the full range of Federal Offenses" but that HSI is "not conveying the authority to enforce administrative violations of immigration law." These statements seem contradictory.
H. Do the rights and duties of this MOU extend to other branches of ICE, like ERO, or are they limited to HSI?
I. Do other Counties in the State have these agreements? If not, why not?
Thank you for allowing me to provide testimony. I am available as a resource, either individually to the council members or to the body as a whole, if that would be helpful.
GREAT Committee Chair Molina and GREAT Committee Members,
I previously testified in opposition to this item and submit this testimony to add to my comments in strong opposition and stand with those who have already provided comments in opposition. As I said during my initial oral testimony last year, this proposed bill and agreement has unintended consequences. I strongly urge the GREAT Committee Members to not act with haste to pass this bill and allow the enactment of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. Please take due consideration of how this could negatively affect those living, working, and going to school in Maui County.
The County of Maui is diverse and is home to many immigrants. They should feel safe to call for emergency assistance and cooperate with local law enforcement in investigations. Having formal agreements with ICE has proven to erode trust and lessen opportunities for those in need to call for help and seek services. It begs the question why the County of Maui would ever enter into agreements with ICE. This is why places like San Francisco passed the “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance which generally prohibits City employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law. As described on San Francisco’s Office of Civic Engagement & Immigration Affairs, the “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance “promotes public trust and cooperation. It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations. It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs.” (Source: https://sfgov.org/ccsfgsa/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0)
Other jurisdictions have seen first hand how these types of agreements have negative, unintended consequences.
* East Bay Times: Oakland police will no longer participate in ICE-led task forces (Source: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/07/19/oakland-cuts-ties-with-ice/)
While acknowledging the agreement may have some benefits, Councilmember Abel Guillen said rescinding it “will send a stronger message to our community that we in fact do not have a relationship with ICE, and it will bring peace of mind to members of our community who are living in fear currently.”
*KQED: Santa Cruz Police: ICE Lied to Us About Immigration Arrests (Source: https://www.kqed.org/news/11331663/santa-cruz-police-ice-lied-to-us-about-immigration- arrests)
"I want to underscore that we would never have participated or cooperated in this operation if we had known that it included immigration enforcement," Police Chief Vogel said. "As a result of this betrayal of trust, we will be taking a long and hard look about whether we will cooperate with this federal agency in the future.
*KSBE Action News 8: Santa Cruz police “disgusted’ by secret ICE Raid (Source: https://youtu.be/yT4gaCwc2q0)
*LA Times: San Gabriel withdraws from its ICE partnership Cities scrutinize ICE collaborations (Source: https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9cb0eda5-8512-4812- 9d46-0b07c60a000b)
The partnership sends the wrong message about the city’s stance toward immigrants, Councilman Jason Pu said. The city’s population is 61% Asian and 25% Latino, and more than half of of all residents are foreign-born. He also asked the City Council to consider a “sanctuary city” resolution at a later meeting. “The city of San Gabriel embraces our immigrant communities. If the message becomes ‘Come to San Gabriel and get deported,’ it would be devastating to our community and to our businesses,” Pu said.
I am asking the GREAT Committee to vote no on the proposed bill. If there is to be such an agreement, this agreement needs to clarify the scope of MPD’s duties and authorities under HSI (part of ICE) and needs to sufficiently provide safeguards to the immigrant community in Maui County. Failure to do this will erode trust between immigrants and law enforcement and vulnerable people will be afraid to report crimes or seek help.
I would also ask the Committee to consider the following questions:
*What other agreements have been enacted to allow for cooperation with ICE?
*Should the Council consider proposing a bill like that of the City of San Francisco’s City and County of Refuge Ordinance?
*Which duties will be assigned to designated MPD officers who are "deputized” and trained by ICE/HSI?
*When are MPD officers authorized to ask suspects, victims, and witnesses questions about their immigration status, social security number, and/or place of birth?
*Does the Council have a plan for oversight, accountability and transparency?
*Has the Council analyzed the risks vs. benefits for the immigrant community under this agreement?
Research shows that victims and witnesses in immigrant communities may be less likely to report crimes if they know that local police may be deputized as ICE officers.
*Will Maui County taxpayer’s money be used to carry out federal ICE duties?
*Why does this bill need to be passed before the new police chief assumes his position?
The community deserves answers to questions concerning this proposed agreement.
A number of other U.S. cities have rescinded their HSI cooperative agreements since first signing them, citing incidents of "inadvertent involvement" of local police involvement in civil immigration enforcement:
Santa Cruz, CA https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/23/santa-cruz-police-homeland-security-raids-immigration-status-not-gang-related/e)
Oakland, CA (City Council rescinded the agreement within a year of signing) https://www.courthousenews.com/oakland-police-cut-ties-immigration-enforcement/
San Gabriel, Pasadena, CA https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9cb0eda5-8512-4812-9d46-0b07c60a000b
Santa Monica, CA https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2017/March-2017/03_17_2017_Santa_Monica_Police_Ends_Agreement_with_Federal_Immigration_Authorities.html
Birmingham, AL City Council is postponing decision-making on a similar proposal due to community concerns (their foreign-born population-at 3%-is much smaller than Maui's). https://birminghamwatch.org/birmingham-delays-ice-agreement-wants-to-assure-it-wont-lead-to-police-involvement-in-deportations/
Immigrant advocacy groups like the National Immigrant Justice Center state that even with cooperative "customs enforcement" agreements like this one, a "clear guilt by association effect is present, harmful, and inhibiting cooperation with local law enforcement, and frustrating public safety goals". Further, "The threat of deportation alone puts pressure and stress on immigrant communities. Fear of being targeted becomes an everyday occurrence. Workers may experience employment abuse, with limited legal recourse, and are more likely to be part of an informal economy with no access to medical insurance for themselves and their families. Researchers refer to these stressors as “extrafamilial acculturative stress,” and find it is associated with poor physical and emotional health in both parents and children." ( "Disentangling Local Law Enforcement from Federal Immigration Enforcement”).
49% of Maui's agricultural workers and over 35% of Maui's Tourism, Recreation, and Hospitality workers are foreign-born. Cooperative agreements like the one proposed contribute to an erosion of trust and present a threat to community safety; if an immigrant or COFA migrant is a victim, or even a witness to a crime, they may not call the police for help or to report if they think the police officer, or might be, a deputized ICE officer.
These are questions we would like addressed:
• Which duties will be assigned to designated MPD officers who are "deputized” and trained by ICE/HSI?
• When are MPD officers authorized to ask suspects, victims, and witnesses questions about their immigration status, social security number, and/or place of birth?
• What level of information sharing will MPD agree to with ICE/HSI (fingerprinting, names, addresses, etc. of "suspects") and how will you prevent the information of innocent residents being shared with the federal agency?
• Will federal agents be allowed entry into local police facilities (offices and jails)?
• Does the Council have a plan for oversight, accountability and transparency?
• Has the Council analyzed the risks vs. benefits for the immigrant community under this agreement?
• Will Maui taxpayer’s money be used to carry out federal ICE duties?
The community has not heard sufficient responses to these questions.
The Legal Clinic (Honolulu-based nonprofit with clients who are foreign-born residents of Maui)
Aloha,
My name is Keisa Liu and I am writing in opposition of GREAT-42: AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS.
As an advocate for vulnerable populations, it would make sense that I would oppose this contract. There is lots of evidence that shows these contracts protect officers who use it for racial profiling and intimidating vulnerable populations such as immigrants and the houseless.
But as the Co-Vice Chair of the newly formed MPD Multicultural Advisory Counsel, I do feel its my work to ask how a contract like this can benefit our community. I spoke with Chief Pelletier and asked how this contract would impact us in Maui County. There are benefits to receiving this federal funding and support. I am confident he could outline and implement a plan that would allow us to use the funds to tackle issues of drug and human trafficking in Maui County without further oppressing our vulnerable populations.
But even then, there hasn’t been enough trust built yet for us to feel safe or believe his words. He will have an uphill battle proving himself.
For me, I personally have an issue with who will have control over the contract. The way it is written, the Mayor will be able to amend the contract at-will without the need for vetting from the Council. I do not trust that such out-of-touch leadership would make amendments that center the residents of Maui County based on what I have experienced.
The Mayor consistently puts the tourism industry above the health and safety of his constituents. As COVID numbers rose, the Mayor supported large gatherings that supported businesses while simultaneously backing the narrative that our rise in numbers was because of “community spread”. He referred to the Amala residents as “jackasses” in a meeting when I asked him if the services he was boasting about would be available for them.
As for Assistant Chief Esperanza, the person named MPD point of contact, I also have serious concerns. That name came up repeatedly when I spoke with community members and officers about the MPD corruption and hostile work environment. I am not interested in granting autonomy and power to an individual with questionable integrity.
It is for these reasons that I am hesitant about supporting this contract.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Keisa Liu
Michael Molina, Chair
Maui County Council
Government Relations, Ethics and Transparency Committee
200 South High Street, 8th Floor
Wailuku, HI 96793
Date: February 1, 2022
Re: GREAT 42 – AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREMENT WITH THE US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS
Dear Chair Molina:
I have been a licensed attorney since 2013 and am currently the principal in a firm that provides representation in all types of immigration and nationality cases. Prior to this, I was the Director of the Immigrant Services Division for the County of Maui. My practice is exclusively immigration related and I have appeared before all the applicable agencies in this field including the Immigration Court (EOIR/ US DOJ); the Board of Immigration Appeals; the Department of Homeland Security(“DHS”) (USCIS and USICE) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have testified as an expert in the second circuit as well as providing in-service training and immigration law training to numerous agencies and non-profits including the Family Court Bar of the HSBA, the Maui County Public Defender’s Office, the Hawaii State Judiciary and the Maui County Council.
I am the Vice-Chair of the Hawaii Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and I sit on the Board of Directors of the Hawaii Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, although I do not speak on their behalf today.
I have already submitted written testimony in opposition to this proposed MOU. I stand by the testimony and will not take up the committee’s valuable time other than to briefly reiterate my reasons for opposition. Many of my, and other advocates, questions remain unanswered and our concerns unaddressed.
1. Erosion of trust and threat to community safety:
In Hawaii, close to 20% of the population are “immigrants (foreign born) with close to 60,000 families (although actual data is difficult to produce accurately) in “mixed status” families in which one or more people may be undocumented.
Perhaps the most important collateral effect of these agreements is that if a person is a victim, or even a witness to a crime, they may not call the police for help or to report if they think the police officer, or might be, a deputized ICE officer.
Trust between local police and the immigrant community is already hard won and fragile. Many of us have worked hard over the past decades to build that trust through the Domestic Violence Task Force, outreach and community building efforts and that trust can easily be eroded and destroyed.
In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the nations premier law enforcement association stated:
Local Police agencies depend on the cooperation of immigrants, legal and otherwise, in solving all sorts of crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families.
In 2019, the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), a group of police chiefs from th largest police forces in the US and Canada found that “Without assurances that contact with the police would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard-won trust communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear.
2. These agreements can lead to constitutional violations and violations of individual civil rights:
Department of Justice investigations of two different County Sheriff’s Offices in Arizona and North Carolina with 287G agreements, similar to this one, revealed widespread constitutional violations including racial profiling, illegal stops and other civil rights violations. (Source: American Immigration Council)
3. These agreements can lead to arrests of individuals without criminal histories
These agreements have a collateral effect of leading to the targeting and arrest of individuals who have no criminal history for nothing other than status offense. Each one of these arrests represents trauma to a family and the community.
A study by the UNC Chapel Hill revealed that 57% of arrests stemming from a 287G agreement in Gaston County were of individuals with no criminal conviction and many of those resulted in depurations which effectively spearted and destroyed families. (Source: Migration Policy Institute)
4. These agreements can be expensive for localities
The Maricopa County Program that was shut down, referenced in Number 2 above created a $1.3-million-dollar deficit. Harris County Texas: $675,000. Mecklenburg County North Carolina: $5.3 million. Alamance County: $4.8 million. Prince William County: $6.4 million.
(Source: Brookings Institution)
5. ICE does not provide sufficient guidance, direction, supervision or support:
A Government Accountabilility Office report from January of 2021 found that there were insufficient performance goals to measure success and concluded that there was no effective oversight for these types of programs as a result. The report also found that there was no standard to determine compliance with the MOU.
I have reviewed the proposed MOU that is before the council and these are the specific questions that I have about it:
A. Are these agreements legal or do they violate the anti-commandeering clause of the 10th amendment?
B. What safeguards are there that "deputized" MPD officers will not ask suspects, victims and witnesses questions about their place of birth, status or social security numbers?
C. This may have a negative impact on community policing as victims and witnesses in immigrant communities will be less likely to report crimes if they know the MPD officer is, or may be, a deputized ICE officer. What assurances and safeguard are there for the immigrant community that they will be safe and not targeted?
D. Does the council have a plan for oversight, accountability and transparency?
E. Can we see ICE Form 73-001 (Its not available online)? What duties will be assigned to designated MPD officers who are "deputized?"
F. The language of the MOU mentions "Abuse of HSI cross designation” What would that look like and what is the reporting and accountability plan to ensure that such abuses do not occur?
G. Item #3 if the MOU says that deputized officers can "enforce the full range of Federal Offenses" but that HSI is "not conveying the authority to enforce administrative violations of immigration law." These statements seem contradictory.
H. Do the rights and duties of this MOU extend to other branches of ICE, like ERO, or are they limited to HSI?
I. Do other Counties in the State have these agreements? If not, why not?
Thank you for allowing me to provide testimony. I am available as a resource, either individually to the council members or to the body as a whole, if that would be helpful.
s:/Kevin Block
February 1, 2022
GREAT Committee Chair Molina and GREAT Committee Members,
I previously testified in opposition to this item and submit this testimony to add to my comments in strong opposition and stand with those who have already provided comments in opposition. As I said during my initial oral testimony last year, this proposed bill and agreement has unintended consequences. I strongly urge the GREAT Committee Members to not act with haste to pass this bill and allow the enactment of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. Please take due consideration of how this could negatively affect those living, working, and going to school in Maui County.
The County of Maui is diverse and is home to many immigrants. They should feel safe to call for emergency assistance and cooperate with local law enforcement in investigations. Having formal agreements with ICE has proven to erode trust and lessen opportunities for those in need to call for help and seek services. It begs the question why the County of Maui would ever enter into agreements with ICE. This is why places like San Francisco passed the “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance which generally prohibits City employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law. As described on San Francisco’s Office of Civic Engagement & Immigration Affairs, the “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance “promotes public trust and cooperation. It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations. It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs.” (Source: https://sfgov.org/ccsfgsa/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0)
Other jurisdictions have seen first hand how these types of agreements have negative, unintended consequences.
* East Bay Times: Oakland police will no longer participate in ICE-led task forces (Source: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/07/19/oakland-cuts-ties-with-ice/)
While acknowledging the agreement may have some benefits, Councilmember Abel Guillen said rescinding it “will send a stronger message to our community that we in fact do not have a relationship with ICE, and it will bring peace of mind to members of our community who are living in fear currently.”
*KQED: Santa Cruz Police: ICE Lied to Us About Immigration Arrests (Source: https://www.kqed.org/news/11331663/santa-cruz-police-ice-lied-to-us-about-immigration- arrests)
"I want to underscore that we would never have participated or cooperated in this operation if we had known that it included immigration enforcement," Police Chief Vogel said. "As a result of this betrayal of trust, we will be taking a long and hard look about whether we will cooperate with this federal agency in the future.
*KSBE Action News 8: Santa Cruz police “disgusted’ by secret ICE Raid (Source: https://youtu.be/yT4gaCwc2q0)
*LA Times: San Gabriel withdraws from its ICE partnership Cities scrutinize ICE collaborations (Source: https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=9cb0eda5-8512-4812- 9d46-0b07c60a000b)
The partnership sends the wrong message about the city’s stance toward immigrants, Councilman Jason Pu said. The city’s population is 61% Asian and 25% Latino, and more than half of of all residents are foreign-born. He also asked the City Council to consider a “sanctuary city” resolution at a later meeting. “The city of San Gabriel embraces our immigrant communities. If the message becomes ‘Come to San Gabriel and get deported,’ it would be devastating to our community and to our businesses,” Pu said.
I am asking the GREAT Committee to vote no on the proposed bill. If there is to be such an agreement, this agreement needs to clarify the scope of MPD’s duties and authorities under HSI (part of ICE) and needs to sufficiently provide safeguards to the immigrant community in Maui County. Failure to do this will erode trust between immigrants and law enforcement and vulnerable people will be afraid to report crimes or seek help.
I would also ask the Committee to consider the following questions:
*What other agreements have been enacted to allow for cooperation with ICE?
*Should the Council consider proposing a bill like that of the City of San Francisco’s City and County of Refuge Ordinance?
*Which duties will be assigned to designated MPD officers who are "deputized” and trained by ICE/HSI?
*When are MPD officers authorized to ask suspects, victims, and witnesses questions about their immigration status, social security number, and/or place of birth?
*Does the Council have a plan for oversight, accountability and transparency?
*Has the Council analyzed the risks vs. benefits for the immigrant community under this agreement?
Research shows that victims and witnesses in immigrant communities may be less likely to report crimes if they know that local police may be deputized as ICE officers.
*Will Maui County taxpayer’s money be used to carry out federal ICE duties?
*Why does this bill need to be passed before the new police chief assumes his position?
Leslee Matthews, Esq, MSW, LSW
Attorney | Social Worker | Advocate