Yesterday, I attended the second meeting of the Dane County Immigration Task Force and I found it quite tense, but interesting. [First, let me say, I’m having a hard time adjusting to the county way of doing things. First of all, this committee has no link on the committees page, so I can’t find out who is on the committee, as I think there were some absences. Second of all, I can find the agenda at the moment (I think it will disappear off this page after this week and then I don’t know where to find it), but no attachments. The staff was very nice and offered to email me all the attachments. But that doesn’t help when you’re sitting in the audience, trying to follow along and have no idea what they are talking about. And it certainly would cut down on public comment if you can’t see what they are talking about, why would you comment? Finally, I think my presence was making them a little uncomfortable, I don’t think they are used to observers and definitely not someone who might write about them and what they say. And they had a little room reservation snafu, which happens, but I think they were very nervous about that – especially since one of the committee members was late because they couldn’t find where the room changed to. Overall, it’s a very interesting change in culture from the City and much harder to follow. On a positive note, this was a good agenda, because I could tell what they were going to talk about, unlike several other agendas I reviewed for this week. Anyways . . .]
The committee members present were Luis Yudice (former Madison Police Captain, current Madison School District employee, chair of the committee), John Hawkins (Social Worker ? Madison School District), Ramona Natera (Immigration Attorney), Rabbi Renee Bauer (Interfaith Worker Justice), Diane Hesselbein (County Board Supervisor) and Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (City of Madison Alder and active in the Latino community). Staff was Dane County Corporation Council Marsha MacKenzie. I was unclear if Sheriff Dave Mahoney was staff, or a guest or a committee member.
While they were settling down from the room change, Luis Yudice explained that the next meeting would be October 20 at 4:00. He says that during the first meeting they discussed the framework for work of task force and notes that they can read the minutes [but the rest of us can’t, cuz they aren’t online anywhere]. They talked about compliance with the law, how to improve relations with law enforcement(he made it clear it was not just the sheriff they were talking about) and community, they agreed to work with NACo (National Association of Counties). He talks about the letter sent from County Board Chair when the committee was set up and says there were several issues highlighted about work of the task force. They will work in broader terms and noted public safety is not limited to law enforcement. The Sheriff jumped in and said this is about countywide law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Yudice also noted that they will be planning meetings in the community to have some listening sessions. As things started to settle down, the minutes of the first meeting were approved.
First they talked about Dane County Resolution 65. [I would link to it, but don’t can’t find it.] MacKenzie gave an overview of the resolution. She noted the policy of ICE changed since policy was adopted. She says that one question is if the sheriff has to comply with the resolution. She says resolutions set county policy or instruct employees of the county what to do. Sheriff in an elected official and doesn’t have to follow it. Sheriff has to perform constitutional duties which supersedes resolution. She says she got a good mem memo from student at law school (Laurie Mlatawou), there a law intern did research plus another attorney in her office did research. In the big picture you look at the language of the resolution. She points out the resolution says that there is an exception to the policy of checking immigration status in order to receive county services and this is for the sheriff when “investigating criminal activity beyond immigration status”. Immigration is a civil issue, not criminal. Tried to get an opinion from former attorney general, said the opinion they got was wishy washy. Sheriff can’t enforce immigration laws because not criminal. She says they sheriff has constitutional duties, but it is not listed as one of them. She says constitution doesn’t speak to it and case law is ill-defined. So, they default to the discretion of the sheriff. He is required to preserve the peace, maintain law and order and maintain security in the jail. Both sheriff’s followed the same policy – doing roughly the same thing. [There was a little disagreement over that, but ultimately they decided they were following the same policy.] She said that the law student came to the conclusion that how you book someone in the jail is ministerial and therefore not part of his constitutional duties so he would have to follow the resolution. MacKenzie seemed to disagree and said that interdepartmental cooperation is a big piece of how law enforcement works and up to the sheriff to decide under his constitutional duties, and not ministerial. No case law says it is ministerial and generally without that case law they defer to the sheriff’s discretion, he’s elected.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about clear case law on state and federal issues. MacKenzie says that is not what they are talking about, they want to know what state courts would say about the resolution. Sheriff says he needs to cooperate with the other agencies. There is no clear ruling on this.
Bauer asks about identity theft vs. immigration issues. Sheriff says that the fact that someone is in the county undocumented is not a crime. Stealing someone’s social security number is. What would courts say – we have no guidance. Law student says its ministerial duty, but that is not clear.
Natera asked about the ICE policy change – Ramona didn’t see the policy in the packet. They said it wasn’t a policy, but a practice of ICE. Sheriff says that the practice of contacting immigration when an individual that is not a US citizen is booked is a policy that goes back to 1980. The oldest document he can find was 1983. But practice when he was hired since 1980 has been if they were a non-US citizen, the former ICE, INS, was notified. It was through a fax. Since email, now practice to make the notification via email. 1980 – 2003 there was a practice that we didn’t notify the the consulates or people that they were entitled to be able to contact the consulate. In 2003 Hamblin was notified that he was in violation of Vienna convention requirements to notify arrestees that they had the right to have the consulate notified or provide them access to notification – that is when they adopted the policy [Again, they had copies, but none available and I can’t link to it that I know of] The sheriff says that when ICE was formed it combined INS, border control, secret service and homeland security. Natera handed out a flow chart on how the agency is organized.
Sheriff says since 911, national administration greatly increased pressure to remove undocumented people from the US which drove up the numbers. He says in 2008 there were
14,142 bookings in the jail
315 were undocumented
ICE notified on 105
He says there are two questions on the booking sheet (same as since 1980), citizenship and city and state of birth, if other than US, ICE is notified – they provide the name and date of birth and any form of identification they might have.
Bidar-Sielaff asks why ICE? Sheriff says it is a tool and ICE has information that is not available to the sheriff. They run them through NCIC but also ICE. Everyone is run through NCIC. They identify ICE in hopes that they have information to help positively identify them, they often don’t have identification post real-ID legistlation.
Natera asks if identification why ICE and not Customs or Border Protection. They are under DHS and ICE is separate. Sheriff says cuz ICE is agency they have been told to have access to the database for undocumented aliens. Someone asked if it was to positively identify or get criminal records. Sheriff says criminal records.
[The Sheriff was contradicting himself throughout the meeting, sometimes the issue was identification of the people, other times he said he needed to know if they had criminal backgrounds.]
Bauer asks about people who say they are citizens, do they just take their word for it. Bidar-Sielaff points out that you are punished for being honest and real criminals are more likely to lie.
Natera says that people might not understand the law because there are many who are here and are not illegal such as people whose parents were born in us, victims of crimes, those in the process of getting paperwork done, petition under VOWA (Violence Against Women Act) They might not know.
Sheriff says they don’t ask if they are undocumented, but citizenship – but don’t check citizens to verify they are not lying. He clarifies that he also checks motor vehicle and NCIC.
Yudice says sheriff has broad discretion – sheriff is explaining and they shouldn’t get into a debate but ask clarifying questions. In the long term, wants to go back to it later on, but the task force can provide input to sheriff and the county, but shouldn’t debate now.
MacKenzie says bottom line is her conclusion is that resolution would fall and sheriff would be upheld.
Bidar-Sielaff says she is not challenging if sheriff can do it, she is challenging if he should do it – legally and as a community. He can do it, he can do a lot of things, but whether he is obligated to do it, that is the question. Not interested in the legal review. Says within county resolution he can do it. They questions are should he do it? Is it voluntary or mandatory? What does this community believe about voluntarily doing it? They should be looking at best practices vs. what he can do. Legal issues are up to the court. MacKenzie seems relieved that committee members are nodding in agreement and thinks it is good that they can move forward.
MacKenzie says then the issue left is the Vienna convention issue. She says notification of ICE is not mandated, sheriff has to preserve peace and public safety and security of the jail. Sheriff says that it is good public policy that law enforcement agencies cooperate. Just good public policy. Sound law enforcement practices. Use all service to ensure public safety, including the jail. He says the sheriff can agree and enter into contract with ICE to enforce immigration matters even tho immigration enforcement is voluntary and civil. He says no sheriff in Dane County has done that yet. He been asked to and refused. Not good public policy for his staff to engage in regular enforcement of immigration policies, just concerned about the jail.
Hawkins asks how it helps the jail. Sheriff says it might be someone else, his ultimate goal is identification. May indicate known past history of that individual, criminal activity in other countries.
Bidar-Sielaff says that it would be informative to find out how many times that happens that he finds out someone is a criminal. She says that it seems to be a one-way process. If we have a drug lord in our jail, that would be good to know. MacKenzie says they might have to start gathering that information.
Bidar-Sielaff says she wants to know what we get back, she wants to know if we have dangerous criminals. She says it seems one way. Sheriff says 75 were removed. Shey asks how often they give us good information. Shiva understands might need good id info and criminal background, but what do we get back from ICE. She wants to know what we get from this system.
MacKenzie asks if positive ID’s could be tracked – Sheriff says that 2008 info was hard to get and basically refused to go back and get the inforamtion. MacKenzie asked them to look forward not look backwards.
Sheriff says in 2008 there were 105 holds, 75 removed. Asked ICE to tell them more – 37 were Madison police arrests, 26 other numicipalities, 5 sheriff arrests, most were for major traffic, Operating while Intoxicated for multiple offenses, one for no drivers license second offense, one on a warrant, 3 controlled substance, 5 sexual assault, 7 domestic violence, 1 burglary (6 counts and more offenses). Not everyone gets deported, doesn’t know what ICE uses as a criteria, doesn’t keep track of that and he can’t tell them what their policy is. He says the problem is broken system at the national level and we all have a responsibility to address the problem. That is the problem he sees.
Bidar-Sielaff says immigration shows up later after released from jail, sheriff doesn’t have a record of that and the number is much higher. That happens as a result of the contact to ICE while in jail.
Natera says they get a notice to appear in front of judge in Chicago unless they have a remedy available.
Hawkins asks what a hold is. The sheriff says that they may want to remove them or they might be collecting more information. The sheriff is asked to hold them and not allow them to post bail. Bidar-Sielaff points out that they are holding people who could post bail and be out – and we are paying for it.
Yudice asked if the list of charges the sheriff read were the charges they were booked under or if they were things ICE told them about. Yudice says that county has a valid responsibility to look after safety of the community, but how much are we losing by not having the trust of the immigrant community because they refuse to talk to law enforcement. No snitch culture in African American Community and Latino community is strong. Where is the balance?
Sheriff says he agrees that is a valid and important concern, he says a lot of that is misinformation driven. Perception is wrong says the sheriff. Reporting a crime will not cause them to look into immigration status. He says there were 12,000 traffic citations in a year and on many occasions people are undocumentated, they are cited and released, except multiple offense criminal activities – he says same as Madison policy, but others law enforcement agencies might have other policies.
Natera asks about page 5, 2nd paragraph of the policy that says that someone could be helof it there is a “potential violation of federal law exists”, that’s a heavy burden for the deputy to figure out. Is there a list? How are they trained?
Sheriff says this is about ICE, not sure what he meant.
Bidar-Sielaff said the policy was confusing to read. How is the policy being applied in a non-discriminatory fashion at the front lines of the booking process. Confusing language to her, and she knows this stuff really well.
Natera jumps in and asks if deputies know the difference between a F1, J1 or J2, would they know? “Potential violation” are the words she was concerned about. Many have residency status’ that can be legal or not.
Bidar-Sielaff was also confused by 2 paragraphs about Vienna convention bottom of page four top of five, rights of person incarcerated, right to be informed. How switch from their right to be have contact to fact that ICE being contacted. Immigration has no relationship with consulate offices, very separate systems. Why mixing the right, we have to contact ICE – unrelated. Informed of right different than our own ICE policy. She wants to know about training.
[At this point, the sheriff started getting a little prickly – and snotty in his comments. But then backed off after a look from Bidar-Sielaff indicating in no uncertain terms that he was out of order.]
Yudice says only citizenship question is considered, deputies won’t know if they are J1. He says that people could be here as a legal resident but not a citizen. ICE makes mistakes. Sheriff says he is not made aware that occurs. Sheriff says there are a lot of hypotheticals. Mahoney says that misinformation is what drives the fear. Madison and Town have more contact with those officers than sheriff.
Bidar-Sielaff says there is lots of confusion about INS and ICE. She asks about the self identified citizenship question. She asks if they would take her word if she looks and talks like she does. He says they will use every means to verify. If you have a driver’s license that’s enough. What if don’t have a drivers license, says that she a citizen, wasn’t born here. He says they will use whatever means necessary.[He was still being pretty testy, I think once they passed the one hour mark, he started losing his patience. And he clearly was being slippery when answering those last questions, leading me to believe that Bidar-Sielaff was right in her line of questioning.]
Hawkins points out that children when they are panicked – lie. With the Dream Act – if they ever lied to an official about status, they are slammed out of Dream Act. He gives the example of a 16 year old who borrows car without permission and gets caught speeding and if they lie to an official and answer wrong in a moment of panic, they can life long impacts. Lyng is wrong, but minimum wage job for rest of life is harsh consequence for childish stupidity.
They move on to the next section of the agenda and look at the document on every day stories. Natera talks about the rumors that spread. She says she sees clients every day who talk about their neighbors best friend and what happened to them. It might be misinformation – but also real stories. She says that the safety of the community is bigger. People may not trust law enforcement.
Bidar-Sielaff says Fabiola Hamden and Bidar-Sielaff have more stories on domestic violence. She notes these are real stories, not made up. She says the sheriff didn’t create the stories, but the stress of 911 and subsequently the climate is that every issue creates a lot of fear, some reality some not, but have to try to balance what the other consequences are. She says the removals are creating situations where families and children left behind. She says we have a different set of consequences for different people because of a broken federal system. Domestic violence issues are real and people don’t call. She says it is hard to encourage people to call – while she might personally think that it is a great thing to get an abuser removed from the community – it is not her call to make, and that consequence will make people not call. People ask will they deport him? She says she has to honestly say “I don’t know”. The answer is “maybe, maybe not”. It’s a hard position to be in. She says she will bring more stories and we will hear more as they do public hearings. Not rare circumstances. They are not the sheriff did this and it all happened, but it all feeds into a big issue. Yudice says that sheriff is only one piece of that.
Yudice asks about information provided in the jail. All the family and friends know police took them away. Sheriff explains the Vine system. They only notify if in the Dane county jail and where they are. Won’t say if it is an ICE hold. They phone system is automated, and the sheriff thinks it is in Spanish, but doesn’t seem to know.
Bidar-Sielaff says that most families just know that suddenly their family member is just gone, some people come from counties where people do just disappear. Immigration system is kind of like that. You don’t even know where the person is sent, how to contact them, unless have an attorney, very hard to find out where they are and what process is and what will happen to them next.
Hawkins says that all the kid know is that the police took my father, mom cries every day because we don’t know where dad is. Sheriff says that the person who took the father away might not even be police or law enforcement but a contracted ICE agent, not ICE agents.
MacKenzie asks about big ICE cars. Sheriff says that they are private contracted employees, homeland security, border patrol, security, not law enforcement.
Hawkins says that even thought they are here legally, he sees kids who have panic attacks. He said the kids father was detained three times. Ultimately, the truth doesn’t matter, people do what people think is true.
Sheriff says that he wants to hire a community liaison like the Madison police department. Funding is a problem. Right now it is a deputy who is known in the community who tries to track someone down. Dodge or Kenosha jails are the holding counties for ICE or moved to detention facility in Chicago. Where someone is based depends on who makes the pick up.
Yudice says consequences to family and unintended consequences to safety of community are important. He talks about a woman who has a domestic pick up and family left with 2 year old and 5 mo old and the kids have special needs, parent has to be there to take care of the kids, but has to go to job to provide for the family now that the father is gone and that has nothing to do with Sheriff. Yudice says this compounds the problem, but make the situation worse. Sheriff says that it can happen with a citizen too. Bidar-Sielaff says that 75 cash could have gotten him out and go through justice system. But 30 days in the jail, our taxpayers dollars, 30 days in Dodge, then removed from country and back in 15 days. More time in jail (60 days), lost his job. Community going through all this pain and agony and this wasn’t the worst of the offenders, he ended up with a misdemeanor disturbance charge.
Mahoney says that he wants to know who this is because they are not supposed to be in the jail for more than 48 hours.
Bidar-Sielaff has congressional report and court case she wants sent to the committee. And with that, they adjourn. Next meeting October 20th at 4:00.
