Amidst the chants of hundreds of protesters outside the Danbury city hall in Connecticut, on February 6, 2008, the Danbury Common Council voted 19-2 to approve a plan that will authorize city police officers to enforce immigration law pursuant to Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Said section provides that immigration enforcement authority can be delegated to local police through a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which sets the specific powers and duties that can be exercised by the local police.
The approval means that Chief of Police Al Baker can now enter into a training agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Supporters of the plan, including Mayor Mark D. Boughton, say the training is needed because of the federal government’s inability to enforce immigration laws. More specifically, city officials insist that the authorization will only be used in “major crimes that have an illegal immigrant angle, like human trafficking and document fraud.”
Opponents of the plan, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Connecticut, believe that the authorization will lead to racial profiling. Danbury has a large immigrant community that is largely Hispanic, but also has a sizeable Filipino community. It is believed that Danbury has an estimated 15,000 undocumented residents. By way of symbolic protest to the Council vote, immigrant-owned businesses all over Danbury shut down on Feb. 6, 2008. Should the large immigrant community of Danbury, Connecticut, including its Filipino populace, be concerned about the plan to authorize local police officers to enforce immigration laws?
The answer is a resounding YES! First, as pointed out by ACLU CT, the recommendations made by both Mayor Broughton and Police Chief Baker do not set forth the exact parameters of the proposed participation in the 287(g) program by the Danbury Policy Department. Councilman Perkins, who opposed the plan, said that he simply could not authorize the program until he sees a memorandum between Danbury and ICE explaining how it will work. Second, if the ostensible purpose of the authorization is to focus on crimes committed by illegal immigrants, please refer to an article by NewsTimesLive.com which states: “If Illegal immigrants are such a pox on law and order in Danbury – and, clearly, they are not – why did crime in the city decline in 2007? The answer is simple: Crime in Danbury declined because the city has a dutiful police force that responded to 114 fewer crimes in 2006.” There were no statistics given on how many illegal immigrants were involved in the crimes.
Third, there is simply no guarantee that the authorization of local police officers to enforce immigration laws will not lead to racial profiling. If local police were authorized to enforce immigration laws, even minor violations of the Motor Vehicle law can provide pretexts for the local police to stop people who look like immigrants.
Arrests by the Danbury local police of immigrants have been known even without actual proof of crimes committed! Consider the lawsuit filed by professors and students of Yale University against Mayor Broughton and city officials on behalf of the “Danbury 11,” accusing them and federal officials of a plot to harass immigrants through illegal arrests and intimidation. On September 19, 2006, the city government of Danbury and ICE arrested 11 day laborers in a sting operation. They were waiting at Kennedy Park and got into a van driven by a man who they thought was a contractor. The man was actually an undercover police officer who promptly delivered them to ICE which, in turn, shipped them to detention centers. The lawsuit states that the police did not know who the laborers were before the sting and had no probable cause or warrants to justify the arrests.
The case of the “Danbury 11” is without doubt not only about civil rights violations but also about racial profiling. No criminal charges were filed against any of those arrested. The lawsuit also claims that immigrants have been targeted in a variety of ways in Danbury, including such action as unequal enforcement of housing codes, traffic stops and shutting down neighborhood volleyball games, a popular sport among Ecuadorians.
How do the governor of Connecticut, the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, and the State Department of Public Safety view the authorization of local police officers, more specifically, state troopers, to enforce federal immigration laws? In a press statement dated Jan. 11, 2007, Connecticut Gov. Deval Patrick rescinded a policy, established by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, which would have allowed Massachusetts state police troopers to detain illegal immigrants. Gov. Patrick stated, “With all that the State Police have to do to enforce the laws of this Commonwealth, I do not believe that it is either practical or wise to ask them to enforce Federal laws as well. That is the job of the Federal government, and it should be done by the Federal Government.”
In the year 2005, this same Mayor Mark D. Broughton and Police Chief Baker sparked controversy when they proposed deputizing state troopers to act as federal immigration agents. The request, which was opposed by the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, was ultimately rejected by Leonard Boyle, then the Commissioner of Connecticut’s State Department of Public Safety. So, what gives? Are Danbury City officials anti-immigrant?
It is indeed tragic that immigrants are to be blamed for all the economic ills and problems that beset a community. In Danbury, they have already targeted the Hispanics. Are the Filipinos next in line? Do the Filipinos in Danbury and elsewhere believe they are immune to racial profiling? What’s next? Now that the ICE program has been approved, Mayor Broughton said a steering committee will be formed with members of the police department, the Common Council, and the public. All immigrants, including Filipinos, should voice their opposition to this plan in public hearings.
