Suffern must answer questions on 287(g)

Having read and heard about the ongoing problems in the Village of Suffern regarding the 287(g) amendment, which would have the village join a federal program that cross-trains local police with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement practices, I decided to do a little research as to the need for the program.

First, the crime rate has fallen by close to 60 percent over the last four years. According to the New York State Division of Criminal Services and supported by the FBI, the crime index (which is a mathematical equation that allows for comparison between municipalities but also between years in the same municipality) for Suffern was as follows: 2003, 144; 2004, 158; 2005, 95; 2006, 86; and 2007, 73. Despite these rates, Suffern Mayor Keegan has been publicly proclaiming that there is a violent crime problem in Suffern with Latinos being involved in 25 percent of the cases. The numbers of violent crimes are as follows: 2003, 25; 2004, 22; 2005, 7; 2006, 4; and 2007, 6. Applying Mayor Keegan's 25 percent to these figures we get the number of violent crimes by Latinos by year, 6.25, 5.5, 1.75, 1 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly, crime is on the wane in Suffern, even though the mayor keeps repeating his 25 percent figure.

The costs and potential costs of the 287(g) program are another factor that the elected officials have not addressed to the public. Every local government in the program must have a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. First the local police must pay for all costs regarding enforcement and implementation of 287(g). The federal government will provide five weeks of training during which time the local police will pay the salaries of those officers being trained. The federal government also grants access to their databases to the local police, to which the state police already have access. The sample memorandum of agreement states that "Participating LEA (local enforcement agency) personnel will carry out designated functions at the LEA's expense, including salaries and benefits, local transportation, and official issue material." Remember that the local enforcement agency, in this case the Suffern police, is doing the federal government's job. Once an individual is in custody, the federal government expects: "If ICE determines it is necessary, the LEA will enter into an Inter-Governmental Service Agreement with ICE pursuant to which, the LEA will, provide for a reasonable fee, detention of incarcerated aliens in LEA facilities ..." Reasonable fee appears to be something less than the actual cost of incarceration. Reimbursement also rests on exactly how much money is allocated each year by Congress. How will a change in government change things come next January?

Liability is the next area that has been dealt with less than candidly. "The LEA will be responsible and bear the costs of participating LEA personnel with regard to property or personnel expenses incurred by reason of death, injury, or incidents giving rise to liability." Here the federal government has completely shifted liability onto the local municipality. The sample memorandum of agreement states: "ICE will not be liable for defending or indemnifying acts of intentional misconduct on the part of participating LEA personnel." Are police officers personally liable here and what is "intentional" and how easy is it to commit? Once again the elected officials of Suffern have not explained this to the people of Suffern, who would have to satisfy any judgment through property taxes and higher fees.

Finally, there's a reference to a Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division publication called: "Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies" (available for download by searching the title name) that must be adhered to by the local enforcement agency, in this case Suffern police. "Racial profiling" is illegal on both the federal and state levels. I bring up this point as I have heard some of the comments that have been made by Suffern residents and even some Suffern officials that suggest that racial profiling is not only acceptable under 287(g) but also desirable. Immigrants regardless of their status do have civil rights. The Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have held this to be the case for more than a century. Engaging in racial profiling can only lead to serious liability for those who go that route. I would view it as "intentional misconduct."

Mr. Mayor, we call on you to fully explain the liabilities and risks of 287(g) to the people of Suffern.