ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ice-foia-10-26740011886-0011897 1/12

Microsoft Outlook

From:

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:26 PM

To:

Subject: RE: Cook CountyAttachments: CHI APPROACH_2010-02-09.doc

12/31/2010

See attached for requested background, but Randi was concerned about rampant, so…

From: Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:23 PMTo: Subject: RE: Cook County

-

Do you know what level of outreach has already been done here? Would we need a full 101? Justwasn’t sure if we already had that answer

From: Greenberg, Randi L [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:15 PMTo:

Subject: Cook County

We may be meeting with the Sheriff next week with the ICE DRO Field Office - yay! Potentially on Thursday...

Can we pull together some background and a short presentation?

Thanks!

Randi GreenbergBranch Chief, Communications & OutreachSecure Communities, ICE202-732-3919 (desk)202-590-1680 (BB)

(Apologies for any typos as I am sending this from my BlackBerry)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

(b)(6), (b)(7)(C)

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897


Pre-Decisional Deliberative Material—FOIA Exempt

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE

Tuesday, February 09, 2010 Page 1

Draft for Client Review

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementSecure Communities Program OfficePotomac Center North

500 Twelfth Street, Southwest

Washington, DC 20024

A STRATEGIC APPROACH FOR ENCOURAGING THE CITY OF CHICAGO,AND COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECURE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

I. IntroductionThis is the third document produced to articulate a strategy to encourage cooperation and

participation in Secure Communities (SC) in certain locales. Each document has been tailored tothe unique factors existing in those locales. The first strategy related to New York City, and the

second to the City and County of San Francisco. With the preparation of these documents, the

federal government’s interpretation of cooperation, and therefore its strategy toward

interoperability, has evolved.

This document, addressing the Chicago, Illinois (CHI) metropolitan area, reflects the most recent

thinking in that regard. But even with the evolution of strategy, the premises laid out previously

remain valid, and it is worth repeating the introduction to the first, New York City, document

here:

As Secure Communities continues deployment nationally, it is inevitable thatsome jurisdictions will be hesitant about participating, because of local

politics, local policy, or philosophical leanings.

Ultimately, local law enforcement agency (LEA) participation is inevitable

because the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) SecureCommunities (SC) program is simply the first of a number of biometric

interoperability systems being brought online by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) Division’s

“Next Generation Identification” (NGI) initiative. But NGI will not become

fully operational until the end of federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, and ICEstrategic plans call for SC to be fully deployed nationally by that time.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






While the primary goal of SC is deployment, a valuable benefit is the

opportunity to create new relationships and to strengthen existing ones. This

can create a sea change in the way local law enforcement perceives ICE. For

this reason, it is important that ICE leaders and officers at all levels makeevery effort to enlist robust, voluntary LEA cooperation at planned

deployment sites. This is particularly important in the context of major

metropolitan areas where lack of cooperation will adversely impact ICE’s

ability to effectively identify and remove alien criminals from the community.

II. Background

Although the City of Chicago and Cook County are distinct political entities, they must be

considered jointly in planning for interoperability deployment because of the interplay between

city and county governments and, particularly, law enforcement organizations in and around the

metropolitan area.

Chicago is the third largest city in the United States, after New York and Los Angeles. It is also

the seat of Cook County, which is demographically the second largest county in the U.S., afterLos Angeles County. The Mayor is Chicago’s chief executive officer and appoints

commissioners and other officials (including the Superintendent of Police) who oversee thevarious departments. The City Council, composed of 50 aldermen elected from each ward in the

city, enacts local ordinances and approves the city budget. Cook County is run by a Board of

Commissioners, one of whom acts as President of the Board.

The primary law enforcement agency serving Chicago proper is the Chicago Police Department(CPD), which has over 13,000 sworn officers, making it second only to the New York Police

Department in size. The primary law enforcement organization within Cook County (outside

corporate city limits) is the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO). CCSO is the second largest

sheriff’s office in the U.S., second in size only to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, with

nearly 7,000 officers and employees. CCSO maintains a Sheriff’s Police division, which, as the

name suggests, performs patrol and crime detection functions. In addition, however, CCSOmaintains a Corrections division which is responsible for all jail functions, and therefore serves

not only the county, but all the municipalities whose arrestees flow into the county correctional

system. Cook County Jail is one of the largest single-site pre-trial holding facilities in the

country; CCSO correctional officers supervise more than 9,000 detainees at any point in time,

most of whom are pending criminal trial in the County’s court system, which receives over onemillion civil and criminal cases yearly.

Besides the CPD and CCSO, there are a number of municipalities in Cook County which have

their own police departments. DuPage and Kane Counties also sit within the metropolitan

corridor, to the west of the city, and maintain their own governmental and law enforcementstructures.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






III. Present Interoperability State of Affairs

The following interoperability activation meetings have already been held:

On June 3, 2009 an internal pre-deployment briefing was held in Chicago. At that time,

ICE SC headquarters (HQ) personnel met with CHI Detention and Removal Office

(DRO) field office staff, as with Office of Public Aff airs (OPA) and Office of the ChiefCounsel (OCC) officials. Representatives from Customs and Border Protection (CBP),

Office of Field Operations, also attended. At this initial meeting, DRO field office

participants expressed concern that CCSO might be unwilling to cooperate because of the

atmosphere existing in the city, in which pro-immigrant nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) have a strong voice and presence.1

On July 23, 2009 ICE SC HQ personnel met for the first time with Illinois State Police

Bureau of Identification (ISP BOI) officials in Joliet, Illinois to discuss interoperability

deployment. (BOI acts as the State Identification Bureau (SIB) for the State.) Also

attending were representatives from CJIS and the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) US-VISIT program, which maintains the repository of alien fingerprints known as

IDENT. At the time of this meeting, BOI officials noted that technical difficultiesprecluded police agencies from receiving secondary messages or photos subsequent to

the initial response from CJIS. Nonetheless, the meeting resulted in BOI agreement to go

forward with activation of interoperability in those jurisdictions which were willing and

able to proceed. A memorandum of agreement (MOA) was signed on November 2,

2009.2

On July 31, 2009, ICE scheduled an interoperability deployment briefing for LEA

representatives in metropolitan Chicago Significantly, neither CPD nor CCSO attended,

although 24 police departments (PDs) from various municipalities sent representatives

(see the table below for a list of those departments).

1The pro-immigrant sentiments are also shared by many political leaders in the city. For instance, on December

16th

, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, representing Illinois’ 4th Congressional District which includes portions of

Chicago and the metropolitan area, introduced an omnibus immigration reform bill in the House of Representatives,

a major component of which would be a legalization program for undocumented aliens. Interestingly, the bill would

not automatically exclude aliens with criminal histories from the program. It is uncertain, though, whether this

provision of the bill—which has not been acted upon, and which has no counterpart in the Senate—would survive

final passage of any comprehensive immigration reform statute.

2Some jurisdictions in Illinois, including in the metro Chicago corridor, have since been activated: for instance,

interoperability was deployed in DuPage and Kane Counties on November 24, 2009.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






ATTENDING LEAs

Arlington Heights PD

Bedford Park PD

Blue Island PD

Brookfield PD

Calumet City PD

Chicago Heights PD

Des Plaines PD

Elmwood Park PD

Forest Park PD

Illinois State Police, Chicago District

Justice PD

Lamont PD

Maywood PD

Mount Prospect PD

North Riverside PD

Northlake PD

Oak Forest PD

Palatine PD

Richton Park PD

Riverside PD

Schiller Park PD

Skokie PD

Tinley Park PD

Western Springs PD

IV. The Strategy

The strategy that we recommend for encouraging Chicago and Cook County to fully participate

in SC, or in the alternative to mitigate consequences from a choice not to do so, has four prongs:

1. Continue the strategy that has already evolved, in deploying interoperability to

willing counties s in the metropolitan corridor until there is a solid presence of

activation around Chicago and Cook County—

Creating this “ring of interoperability” is both feasible and practical; it permits ICE to

identify and apprehend those criminal aliens who operate in the larger vicinity and not

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






just within city or county boundaries. It also allows police and sheriff’s deputies in

activated jurisdictions to share their positive experiences with colleagues and

counterparts in CPD and CCSO, who may begin to recognize that wholehearted

participation in SC is to their benefit.

2. Take advantage of the interest shown by municipal police departments (other than

Chicago PD) who are operating within Cook County boundaries to penetrate thecounty with spheres of interoperability—

As with strategy number 1, these spheres of interoperability permit ICE to expand

activation, ensure better coverage within the metropolitan area, and significantly mitigate,if not reverse, the existing reluctance by both CPD and CCSO to participate.

3. Proceed with ongoing plans to expand interoperability select facilities within theIllinois State penitentiary system.

Using modeling results to determine the most productive locales, and working with

Illinois Department of Corrections to activate interoperability of state penal facilities thatare recipients of criminal aliens sentenced to incarceration within Cook County will

ensure additional identification of criminal aliens above-and-beyond the identifications

that will occur through deploying interoperability in the surrounding counties.

4. Ask Administration officials with ties to the metropolitan Chicago area to initiate a

dialogue with city and county leaders soliciting their commitment to activation andSecure Communities participation.

Prior to the most recent presidential election, both President Obama and his White House

Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, were long-time Chicago residents and political leaders in

their own right. ICE should leverage that circumstance and if, notwithstanding repeated

and concerted efforts to engage the city and county (both of which are led by Democraticparty officials), they continue to refuse to attend briefings or join in a dialogue about the

benefits of SC, then the agency, through Assistant Secretary Morton, should ask the

assistance of the Secretary of Homeland Security in approaching Mr. Emanuel to ask his

intervention.

Clearly this should be an approach of last resort, because undoubtedly the Assistant

Secretary, the Secretary, and the Chief of Staff will all wish to reassure themselves thatevery possible avenue of engagement has been exhausted before undertaking such a

course of action.

V. Alternative Strategy

If, after all efforts have been exhausted including involvement by the Department and theAdministration, the city and / or the county continue to decline participation, then there is only

one course left:

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






1. Formally notify both the Cook County Sheriff and the Chicago Superintendant ofPolice by letter that, on a date certain, interoperability will be activated within their

area(s) of jurisdiction.

The letter should advise them that activation will occur on a date certain, pursuant to a

memorandum of agreement already signed by ISP BOI, acting as the Illinois SIB, andadvise them that they are free to determine what use, if any, they wish to make of the

IARs which will come to their booking stations as a consequence of the activation.

VI. Next Steps

After final acceptance by SC PMO leadership of this strategy, the next steps described below

should be discussed via teleconference with the CHI DRO Field Office prior to moving forward

1. Aggressively pursue activation for LEAS within the other municipalities of Cook County

that are interested in participation.

2. Renew a dialogue with Chicago and Cook County officials, seeking to arrangeinteroperability deployment outreach meetings, and pursue these opportunities, should

they exist, expeditiously.

a. ICE must be willing to expend leadership and political capital to forge willing

cooperation from CCSF. We recommend sending a letter from the Assistant

Secretary (AS) to the Chief of the CPD and to the Cook County Sheriff,

seeking a meeting at a date, time and place of their choosing. We recommendthat the letter ask that the meeting take place within 30 days, if possible.

These officials should be asked what other city or county law enforcement

authorities, in addition to themselves, they wish to attend. They might wish to

include, for instance, representatives from the Office of the District Attorney.

3. Should Chicago and Cook County officials continue to decline, then it is important todevelop a short but reasonable timeline for initiating contact with the Departmental and

Administration officials previously mentioned, in order to provide advance briefings on

Secure Communities, to emphasize the importance of cooperation from city and county

officials in the second largest metropolitan area in the country, and to determine their

amenability to assist in gaining the cooperation of city and county officials.

4. If a decision is made at the highest leadership levels of the Department or the

Administration not to engage, or if notwithstanding their engagement, the city and / or the

county remain immovable, then ICE should proceed.

a. SC should contact CJIS, USVISIT and ISP BOI officials to advise them that it

intends to press forward with interoperabiliy.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






b. As stated previously, a letter should be sent to the appropriate city and county

law enforcement officials formally notifying them of the decision to move

forward with activation., with courtesy copies of the letter to CJIS, US-VISIT,

and BOI.

VII. Making the Presentation(s)1. Although the interoperability deployment briefing(s) for Chicago / Cook County

should be presented by SC subject matter experts (the assigned SC PMO Regional

Coordinator working in tandem with the designated DRO Field Office SC

Coordinator), the meetings should be attended by senior ICE HQ leaders, as well asby DRO field office managers who know and understand the local environment.

Executive-level presence at such meetings signals to city and county officials the

seriousness of the U.S. government’s commitment to achieving agreement and

successful deployment of interoperability.

2. Briefings may or may not be made directly to the officials who harbor the deepest

concerns because ICE cannot control who city and county authorities choose to send.However—

a. The briefings should specifically speak to the concerns of these officials, as

best they are understood by ICE.

b. The briefings should be accompanied by “leave behind” materials specific tothe issues for the metropolitan Chicago area, because they provide a

convenient way for those attending to assure city and county political and law

enforcement leaders of ICE’s recognition of their concerns.3

c. CPD and CCSO officials should be encouraged to contact other jurisdictions

which harbored doubts, but have since activated interoperability with positive

results; specific points of contact and contact numbers should be provided for

this purpose. We suggest Houston and Philadelphia Police Departments, orLos Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, as possible candidates who may be

willing to assist in this regard.

d. At the end of the presentation, ICE officials should specify a specific date on

which activation will occur.

e. ICE executives in attendance should voice their willingness to meet with, and

provide additional briefings to, other city or county officials in order to

respond to their questions or concerns, while emphasizing that activation will

take place on the date specified.

3Because ICE cannot control where such “leave behind” documents may end up, caution should be exercised in

both their substance and format—no “official use only” or “law enforcement sensitive” materials, etc.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






3. ICE presenters and participants should be candid and prepared to discuss other issues

which may arise in order to allay concerns and clarify confusion as to what SC is and,

equally important, is not. At the same time, it is critical that ICE presenters and

participants remain consistent in propounding the key message points they wish tomake (see Section VIII below).

VIII. Key Message Points

1. SC enhances public safety in your community—

It’s important to understand that the focus of SC enforcement is criminal aliens. What

is more, we prioritize within the broad category of criminal aliens, so that our efforts

are against the worst of the worst. Often, such criminals prey not only on citizens, but

also victimize other aliens within the community. Putting our emphasis on identifyingand removing aliens guilty of the most serious criminal offenses is a highly appropriate

use of our resources, and makes your community safer by helping to reduce criminal

recidivism by those criminal aliens who are repeat offenders.

2. This program has no interest in focusing on undocumented aliens who are victims

of, or innocent witnesses to, crimes—

An alien’s criminality is the bright-line test for SC purposes, not simply his or her

status as an undocumented alien. Aliens who are victims or innocent witnesses need

have no reason whatever to notify or interact with the police or sheriff’s department as

a result of this program.

3. Biometric interoperability under SC is fundamentally fair—

Because the fingerprints of all arrestees are vetted in exactly the same manner throughour system, no one is treated in a disparate manner. Additionally, they are only

fingerprinted as a result of the instant crime for which they are charged and booked bythe police. Only those individuals whose fingerprints establish a match to prior

immigration records and are clearly removable criminal aliens are of interest to us.

4. We are not asking you to do our job—

Under the SC initiative, local police and federal immigration officers maintain theirtraditional roles. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed between ICE and the

SIB specifically says, “Neither the SIB nor any state or local LEA [law enforcement

agency] that is subject to this MOA will be responsible for determining an individual’s

immigration status or whether a particular conviction renders an individual removable

pursuant to the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act].”

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






We ask only that you honor our detainers when we file them against a removable

criminal alien in your custody. We in turn commit to responding promptly when

contacted to accept custody of that alien.

5. Exchange of fingerprint information is nothing new—Federal immigration authorities have been receiving rap sheet kickbacks on arrestedaliens for decades. What is fundamentally different about SC is speed and accuracy,

both made possible by technological advances and the use of biometrics. Under the old

system, rapsheet kickbacks took weeks or months for our field offices to receive, often

with the consequence that the individual had posted bond and fled or otherwise become

unlocatable. Using the biometric interoperability capacities made possible by linkages

between local and state LEA systems, CJIS, and federal immigration biometric andbiographic databases, we can identify a removable criminal alien who has been arrested

by your agency within hours, giving us the opportunity to file a detainer while the alien

is still in custody, and to take effective action once criminal justice proceedings are

complete. Selective use of such detainers on the worst offenders helps close the

‘revolving door’ of the criminal justice system by which dangerous criminal aliens havein the past ended up back in the streets of your community.

6. Biometric interoperability under SC is a part of the larger CJIS Next Generation

Identification (NGI) initiative—

CJIS is phasing in deployment of a host of new biometric interoperability capabilities

to state and local LEAs. Deployment of these enhanced capacities will be completed

nationwide by 2013. SC is just one – the first – of these many additional information

streams being made available to assist LEAs at every level, to fully and accuratelyidentify suspects in their custody. Instead of just flipping the switch in 2013, signing

on to SC now is an opportunity for your officers to see the future and become

comfortable with it, before multiple-menu NGI activation by CJIS.

7. What you choose to do with Immigration Alien Responses (IARs) is up to you—

When biometric information generates a hit in federal immigration databases, the

resulting information is passed back, through CJIS and the SIB, to the arresting agency.

That information is returned as an IAR. As we have stated, providing you thatinformation does not entail any expectation of action on your part. What is more, as we

have already noted, IARs are only the first of many additional informational messages

you can expect to receive under CJIS NGI.

If you do not wish to receive the IAR, you may work with your SIB to turn it off at the

appropriate ORI(s). We would caution that in making a decision not to receive IARinformation, your officers may find themselves deprived of substantive information

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






relating to an arrested subject’s true identity, place of origin, and other pertinent data of

significant law enforcement value.

8. Interoperability works with your existing booking process—Since Interoperability leverages existing communication channels, no major changes

are required, and no substantive expenses are incurred, for your agency to benefit from

this capability.

IX. Other Issues and Concerns that May Arise

There appear to be at least three major points of concern. They are expressed here without

regard to any priority order, along with suggested responses:

1. Doubts about, or disagreement with, the 287(g) program—

Response You need to know that Secure Communities is fundamentally different thanthe Section 287(g) cross-designation program. SC asks no police officer to make

decisions about, or act upon, an arrestee’s citizenship or immigration status. In this

way, LEAs are free to do their job; ICE is free to do its job.

2. Future immigration reform legislation might provide individuals a path toward

legal status—

Response Even in the event that immigration reform legislation is passed, it is unlikely

that aliens convicted of any but the most insignificant crimes will be eligible to apply

for legalized status.

3. We are aware of concern by NGOs that the initiative might result in racial

profiling by police officers—

Response Allegations of racial profiling are taken seriously, and mechanisms exist forany alien who believes that he or she has been a victim of profiling to report the alleged

misconduct to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General. Inmost LEAs, including yours, there are also parallel mechanisms to report inappropriate

conduct or activity on the part of police officers, as well as policies and training in

place to prevent racial profiling. We have seen no instances of profiling in any locationwhere interoperability has been deployed, although we remain vigilant against the

possibility.

There is no empirical basis to believe that Secure Communities would encourage or

result in such inappropriate conduct. To the contrary, it is entirely possible thatlocations where interoperability has been deployed would be more likely to detect such

a practice on the part of their officers by monitoring on a routine basis the responses

(IARs) received from the LESC to determine inappropriate patterns and anomaliesinstead of the one-to-one relationship that should exist between transmissions and

responses.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.00

8/7/2019 ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897






We also believe that establishing a baseline of arrest statistics based on nationality, race

and ethnicity prior to implementing SC, and periodically comparing the statistics post-

implementation to assure there are no substantial discrepancies, will continue to affirmthe fundamental fairness in the way the program is being carried out.

X. Chicago – Specific Leadership Information

1. Administration— Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. Prior to joining the

Obama Administration, Mr. Emanuel was a Member of Congress representing the fifth

district of Illinois, and was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

2. City of Chicago—

a. The present Mayor is Richard M. Daley, a Democrat first elected in 1989. Mr.

Daley is the son of Richard J. Daley, also a long-time mayor of Chicago.b. The Superintendant of Police since 2008 is Jody P. Weiss, a former FBI agent,

who took the position after his predecessor stepped down amid community

tensions and allegations of endemic brutality. Mr. Weiss is only the second chief

of police ever selected from outside CPD’s ranks. Although Mr. Weiss’s attitudetoward SC is unknown, it can be presumed that having been a federal law

enforcement officer, he will quickly comprehend the benefits and mechanics of

the program, although he will of course be obliged to follow the course laid out by

his political leaders in the city.

3. Cook County—

a. The President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners is Todd H. Stroger; aDemocrat, like Mr. Daley.

b. The Cook County Sheriff is Thomas Dart, who is one of the longest-serving of

incumbent Illinois sheriffs. To date, he has exhibited neither support nor

enthusiasm for SC, though whether this reflects his personal views or a

recognition of local politics is a matter of conjecture.

ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897

Documents

Transcript of ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011886-0011897