ICE developed the ACCESS program in response to the widespread interest from local law enforcement agencies who have requested ICE assistance through the 287(g) program. This program cross-designates local officers to enforce immigration law as authorized through section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 287g program is only one component under the ICE ACCESS umbrella of services and programs offered for assistance to local law enforcement officers.
ICE agents and officers will meet with agencies requesting ICE ACCESS assistance to assess local needs and to draft appropriate plans of action. Based upon these assessments, ICE and local agencies will determine which type of partnership is most beneficial and sustainable before entering into an official agreement.
In other words:
1. ICE will meet with local law enforcement and officials and,
2. Draft appropriate plans to meet the needs of the municipality. THEN,
3. An official agreement will be established.
Take that into consideration when you read the letter from Corporation Council that was presented to the members of the Common Council on DECEMBER 27th and to the public ONE DAY before the vote on this program. Take note of the section in blue...
From Council Pinter's own letter, ONCE the Common Council authorizes the program AND law enforcement executes a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with ICE, THEN DanburyPD/ICE ACCESS relationship goes into effect.
....and what's a MOU? Let's go to page 2 of Pinter's letter.
The MOU defines the scope (and the limitations) of authority that the local authorities will have.
There lies the problem. As of now, THERE IS NO MOU because an assessment between ICE and Danbury has been established.
Ask yourself this question:
• If ICE states that "ICE agents and officers will meet with agencies requesting ICE ACCESS assistance to assess local needs and to draft appropriate plans of action. Based upon these assessments, ICE and local agencies will determine which type of partnership is most beneficial and sustainable before entering into an official agreement" AND,
• The MOU defines the scope (and the limitations) of authority that the local authorities will have,
Why would Mayor Boughton press the Common Council to vote on this program BEFORE establishing the limitations of the program BASED ON AN ASSESSMENT BETWEEN ICE AND DANBURY?
Here's Boughton's letter on the program (note the words marked in blue):
In Boughton's OWN words, Chief Baker met with ICE to "discuss the nature of the program and the process of enrollment." There was NO assessment done because ICE did not sit down with Danbury and "assess local needs and to draft appropriate plans of action" so they could "determine which type of partnership is most beneficial and sustainable before entering into an official agreement" with Danbury.
Back in December, when first interviewed by the News-Times about this program, Boughton was hell-bent on getting what he wanted without offering any real details of the program (and it's limits).
Though the Council could decide to study the issue further, Mayor Mark Boughton doesn't think that will happen.
"All the information is in front of them," Boughton said about the reports given by him, Police Chief Al Baker and Corporation Counsel Les Pinter to the 21 Council members. Establishing a committee to study the issue would "just delay the process," Boughton said.
It's like you're at the mall and your daughter comes up to you and say "I don't know what I want to buy or how much money I'm going to spend but just give me the credit card (wink, wink).
Any good parent would either set limits on how much money the daughter could spend or want to know what their daughter is buying before handing over the credit card. Once you hand over the card, Pandora's box is open and just like a kid at the mall, the members of the common council should know the limitations of Boughton's proposal BEFORE voting on the program.
Why give Boughton a blank check to do anything he wants? Again, even ICE is saying that they enter an official agreement AFTER the program is drafted. If there is NO program, voting on ICE ACCESS as is would give the mayor a blank check to draft any program he wants and that's a BIG NO NO.
When Boughton talks about the possible ICE partnership, he couches 287(g) as one of many options available under the ICE ACCESS umbrella.
However, a Dec. 21 one-page memo from Danbury Police Chief Al Baker only mentions 287(g) -- and does not mention the larger, ICE ACCESS program.
In the letter, the chief recommends police participate in 287(g) on a limited basis, which would simply formalize "a long-standing informal relationship that has existed between the Danbury Police Department and ICE."
On Friday, Boughton conceded Danbury detectives would probably participate in 287(g), but not the "rank and file" patrol officers.
He conceded on Friday...FRIDAY. If Boughton had it his way, the vote would have went down last THURSDAY and it would have been too late.
Without the MOU, or the limits of the program, does anyone really know what the city is getting into?
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
