Home > General > 287(g) Changes to Memorandum of Agreements(MOA’s)

287(g) Changes to Memorandum of Agreements(MOA’s)

July 23rd, 2009

Last week the Department of Homeland Security announced policy changes to the 287(g) program that addresses the concerns that many people have with the 287(g) program, namely that it could be used as a means to target non-criminal individuals as a means to initiate immigration removal proceedings. These changes reflect the intent of the policy which was to remove serious criminals.

Hopefully, the changes will also mandate a better accounting of how many people are actually deported. Currently there is no mechanism to determine those numbers which makes the assertions by the Chairman that the County has ‘deported’ 1500 individuals absurd. Rather, 1500 individuals have been reprimanded to ICE, transferred to Fairfax County, processed and then the majority of them have been released and are back home by dinnertime.

More information can be found here –

ICE Fact Sheet
DHS Press Release, July 10, 2009
Policy or Politics? DHS Changes and Expands 287(g) Program

Categories: General Tags:
  1. Rick Bentley
    July 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 | #1

    This makes me angry … and on a related note, mark my words, Obama’s gamesmanship over the illegal immigration issue is going to cost him any chance at health care reform. People aren’t going to want Americans to give health insurance to illegal aliens. yeah I know the status quo is basically that but if you try to run that through a vote that wouldn’t get approved either.

  2. July 23rd, 2009 at 13:32 | #2

    Alanna, why did you take the information from the FAIR website? Just curious.

  3. Moon-howler
    July 23rd, 2009 at 14:17 | #3

    Actually Rick, the real waterloo of health care is all the anti abortion people who do not want their tax dollars paying for any abortions. As I understand it, that isn’t even a question, but what do I know.

    The abortion debate will always be stronger than the immigration debate.

    So, unemployment will grow and more people will be right there with no health coverage. Somehow they will think they are more entitled to whatever it is that allows you to walk on your bills than the illegal immigrant. It seems easier to have some kind of program where everyone is insured. Why would we want to leave illegal immigrants out of the loop. I dont want to pay for anyone else’s. Lets let them pay for their own.

    Sorry, off topic.

  4. hello
    July 23rd, 2009 at 18:16 | #4

    Obama didn’t do himself any favors on health care with his prime time show last night… He didn’t address any issues people have with his health care agenda, he just went over the same old talking points he has been saying for the past couple of weeks. What a waste of an hour that was… I wonder how the networks are going to react the next time he wants to put on another infomercial (which will probably be next week).

    About 287g, this is confusing to me. I don’t see how it could be used ‘as a means to target non-criminal individuals’. Am I wrong or does that make no sense at all? Cops don’t just pick up someone off the street and then check to see if their here illegally. The people that go thru the system are already arrested for something else, then their status is checked.

    This just seems like yet another way for Obama and Nap to stop the deportations of people who reside in this country illegally no matter what the situation is. They already stopped workplace raids, what’s next?

  5. hello
    July 23rd, 2009 at 18:18 | #5

    I agree with PAP, odd Alanna is now quoting directly from the evil hategroup FAIR website…

  6. ShellyB
    July 23rd, 2009 at 18:35 | #6

    Maybe Alanna is quoting an anti-immigrant lobbying organization to give us an idea of how anti-immigrant lobbying organizations feel about changing 287g such that it steers clear of racial profiling.

    Here is how 287g could be used inappropriately. The police sees someone who looks like they might be undocumented (dark complexion), then they follow that person for as long as it takes for him to do something wrong. When he does, they pull him over and search the car. If they find anything in the car that is contraband, they arrest them knowing their status would be checked. There are so many laws about how to drive, it would be easy to find an infraction if you follow someone long enough. And it may seem only fair that someone with drugs in their car should go to jail. But the unfair part is that someone who did not fit the profile of an undocumented person might not have been followed in the first place.

  7. An Ordinary Joe
    July 23rd, 2009 at 19:07 | #7

    I think that may be a bit over the top? Let me see how this works–“Sarge, I have been following this person for three days expecting a violation of the law. Give me another week and I can prove it.”

  8. Second-Alamo
    July 23rd, 2009 at 19:10 | #8

    “someone who did not fit the profile” What on earth are you talking about? You mean police actually have a valid understanding of the appearance of those who are more likely to be involved in illegal behavior? Wow, that sounds like a really smart way to prevent crime! Does no good to spend tax payers’ money following little old ladies around now does it. Hey, we could refer to it as ‘profiling’, what a concept!

  9. ShellyB
    July 23rd, 2009 at 19:47 | #9

    Alamo, it seems like you and I agree on something. Following little old ladies would not lead to a lot of drugs or illegal weapons busts. But if you follow around a group of 20-year-old men with handkerchiefs on their head you might find something in the trunk if and when they pull an illegal U-turn.

    Police are not supposed to use race when they decide who to tail. They know that. But it could unconsciously creep into their intuitive sense of whether one group of 4 young men is likely to have drugs or weapons, but another quartet is not likely. That’s the sticky situation that exists without getting into the immigration Pandora’s box. Once you get into that, well there is a societal stereotype that says anyone who looks a certain way is likely to be undocumented. And that can also creep into the officer’s mind when deciding who to put a tail on.

    You know, your political views are fine and good. But police work is very complicated. So you have to think twice before taking a stand on things like this. Look what happened to PWC. The excuse for the Immigration Resolution was “crime,” and yet crime had been going down. Then come to find out only 2% of the crime in the county is committed by undocumented people. And we spent $14,000,000 to end up with MORE crime than we had during the years when the immigrants moved here. Go figure.

  10. hello
    July 23rd, 2009 at 20:14 | #10

    ShellyB, you said “The police sees someone who looks like they might be undocumented (dark complexion), then they follow that person for as long as it takes for him to do something wrong.”

    I’ve got family members who are police officers in MD and I’ve asked them about something like this. From talking with them half the time (in the day time) they have no clue what ethnicity the person is when they pull someone over. They are usually behind the person and if you can tell what ethnicity someone is in the car ahead of you then you have super human sight. At night that they have next to no clue the ethnicity of the person they are pulling over. And trust me, they don’t have time to follow someone around until they make a mistake. That has to be one of the oddest statements I think I’ve ever heard.

  11. Moon-howler
    July 23rd, 2009 at 21:03 | #11

    Broken tail lights are a dime a dozen with unscrupulous law enforcement. I doubt we have much of that here in PWC but it does happen.

    Speeding? Your word against theirs. Now that has happened to me here in Prince William.

    I know I know, I sound like you know who….

  12. Second-Alamo
    July 23rd, 2009 at 22:29 | #12

    Just a question, but how exactly did the Resolution cost PWC 14 million dollars. For what? Police training on behalf of the 287g program? Where does this oft reported figure come from? All we did was make some rules, and trained a few police who would have needed training to support the 287g program that all here seem to support anyway. There was some outrageous quote for car cameras, but that didn’t happen. So how?

  13. Second-Alamo
    July 23rd, 2009 at 22:41 | #13

    BTW, what is the purpose of keeping crime statistics if not to determine or ‘profile’ the type people who are more apt to commit crimes? If the statistics say, that given the choice, you had to tail a car full of type A people versus one full of type B people, and the type B were by ‘profile’ more likely to be involved in a crime, then who would you follow? Common sense says you’d go with type B, but then you find out they are as an example Latino, and so now you’re guilty of ‘profiling’? Everyone wants crime prevented on one hand, but then goes out of their way to stop crime prevention with accusations of ‘profiling’. Make up your minds! How about the type B people try preventing their members from committing crimes, and then maybe they wouldn’t show up when criminals were ‘profiled’. Stop blaming law enforcement for the sorry state of the type B population!

  14. Second-Alamo
    July 23rd, 2009 at 22:43 | #14

    And that goes for that Harvard professor also!

  15. Moon-howler
    July 24th, 2009 at 00:10 | #15

    Now he was a jerk. I would have been glad my neighbors cared enough to call the cops if they thought someone was breaking in.

  16. DiversityGal
    July 24th, 2009 at 01:59 | #16

    I understand what you are saying, Moon-howler, but that is always easier to say when someone isn’t calling the cops on you…

  17. Moon-howler
    July 24th, 2009 at 07:42 | #17

    I would want my neighbors to call if they saw something suspicious going on in my house. Professor Gates had been out of the country. Civil discourse is always best when dealing with law enforcement.

    Actually I can’t imagine why any thinking person would escalate a situation like that. Why should anyone mind proving their identity over a safety issue? Ever stood behind some jackass at an airport who has a point to prove. They take up space and air. Times have changed. Same situation here.

    I am disappointed that Obama would shoot off his mouth without knowing all the facts. Really disappointed. Does he think he is Joe Biden or something?

  18. Second-Alamo
    July 24th, 2009 at 09:12 | #18

    Thank God (I can still say that right?) Obama isn’t running for a seat on the Supreme Court! Rush to judgement isn’t a characteristic of judges or great leaders. I just hope he didn’t apply his same ‘in-depth’ investigation into the healthcare issue before they started ramming it down our throats!

  19. Moon-howler
    July 24th, 2009 at 09:46 | #19

    I am not too worried about the Supremes, at this point. I am just sorry the Obama got involved in a local racial issue. He could have said 100 things rather than what he said, that would have not been as bad. I am not an anti Obama person, nor is my husband, who howled bloody murder over this.

  20. Moon-howler
    July 24th, 2009 at 09:47 | #20

    SA, I would have done a thread but I am too biased on this one issue to even do it.

    You do admit that something needs to change with the health care situation?

  21. Second-Alamo
    July 24th, 2009 at 10:34 | #21

    I agree things need to change, like making people pay for services even if it is ion installments over time. My insurance costs are up now partly because of paying for those who don’t. The good news is that many who don’t have insurance don’t need medical care that often and that keeps the costs to a certain level, but when we all have to support everyone having insurance, then that will add tons to the cost. Will I get a break on my coverage cost because I’ve been paying my way for years, or is this another one of those sucker situations. You know, do the right thing, work hard, and then have someone penalize you for your efforts.

  22. An Ordinary Joe
    July 24th, 2009 at 10:47 | #22

    I would really like to see a real rebirth of free clinics, funded by the government and staffed with new doctors in return for a salary, malpractice insurance and forgiving medical school bills. It would expose the new doctors to a lot of medical needs and may make them better doctors. I would think a trilion dollars would be better spent and lessens the load in ERs.

  23. ShellyB
    July 24th, 2009 at 11:00 | #23

    Hello,

    I’m sure there are many police officers who look for traffic violations and pull people over in order to give them tickets. The police officers I have talked to say they are not really interested in giving people tickets and ruining their day. They do this if they sees something blatant. But they look at traffic and car inspection rules very differently. If they see a car cruising along with some people who fit a criminal profile (not racial, but criminal profile they say), then they look for some infraction that gives them the right to pull them over.

  24. ShellyB
    July 24th, 2009 at 11:06 | #24

    Alamo, you have gotten some value for the insurance premiums you have paid. It’s not like you’ve been totally suckered. I used to think that having insurance was like betting that that something bad is going to happen. And then if nothing bad happens, I lost the bet. Right? Because I paid the insurance premium but didn’t have a catastrophic injury.

    Well. Now I look at it differently. Having medical insurance gives me the piece of mind to know that my assets and my family’s assets are protected in case of an emergency. A lot of Americans don’t have that. So when they have a catastrophic injury or are diagnosed with a debilitating disease, it destroys their whole family’s lives. If they can’t afford the treatment, they just die. This does not seem right for modern day America.

    Young people like to take the risk and not have insurance. I think it would be good if they were required to have it, like car insurance. Hillary was right!!!! Having them pay into the system will reduce costs for the rest of us. And those unlucky ones who end up needing the insurance will be covered instead of dying and/or destroying their families financially.

  25. Second-Alamo
    July 24th, 2009 at 11:07 | #25

    Often referred to as Crime Prevention.

  26. ShellyB
    July 24th, 2009 at 11:08 | #26

    Plus, when you have health insurance you can go to the doctor when you have a concern and ask “does this look cancerous?” instead of bugging a friend who is a doctor.

  27. ShellyB
    July 24th, 2009 at 11:09 | #27

    Alamo, I’m not saying that the practice of criminal profiling is necessarily bad. I’m just saying that’s what police officers do. Because Hello seemed doubtful about that.

  28. Second-Alamo
    July 24th, 2009 at 11:12 | #28

    The point is Shelly that by paying my own way I haven’t been a burden on the system, so therefore I should receive some credit in that respect, but as usual those who are a burden will get insurance and I’ll get higher payments. Nice!

  29. Moon-howler
    July 24th, 2009 at 14:04 | #29

    SA, you have been paying for people without insurance all along. This isn’t a new thing. I saw something on tv that said 84% of Americans have health coverage and 16% don’t. I am not sure I buy those numbers. ARe people on Medicaid being included in those numbers? how aobut Medicare? Medicare people pay for their coverage. In fact, is more than half what paying out of pocket for regular group coverage is. not too many benefits there!

  30. Censored bybvbl
    July 24th, 2009 at 16:17 | #30

    SA, we all pay for something we don’t use. More than half my tax dollars for the past forty-odd years have gone to schools even though I have no kiddos who use them. But it’s money well invested to have a more educated populace.

    I agree with An Ordinary Joe about creating more free clinics. Many procedures can be taken care of without the use of an emergency room.

  31. hello
    July 27th, 2009 at 18:03 | #31

    The more I think about this the more apparent to me it is what Obama and his DHS are doing here is anything and everything they can, little by little, to completely roll back any type of immigration enforcement that has been put in place. Why? Because he knows that he can’t get immigration reform passed so they just slip this in here, that in there and before you know it we no longer have any immigration enforcement.

    So far they have done away with workplace raids and now gutted 287g. They say that they want to focus on the employer, not the employee but at the same time refuse to enforce the use of e-verify and no longer send no-match letters.

    What they are doing is amnesty, you just don’t notice it because they are doing it little by little, just under everyone’s radar.

Comments are closed.