June 17, 2004 Letter to Representative Moran
PO Box 8208
Alexandria, VA 22306-8208
June 17, 2004
The Honorable James P. Moran
U.S House of Representatives
2239 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4608
Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), chair of the anti-immigrant caucus, has proposed two amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill (H.R. 4567) which are expected to be considered late this evening (6/17) or tomorrow morning (6/18). These measures compel state and local police officers to become federal immigration agents, by denying them access to federal funds they are already receiving if they refuse these additional duties.
The Tancredo amendments would, specifically:
These amendments are bad because:
Cutting Funds to Our First Responders Is Not Good For National Security
We count on state and local governments and law enforcement authorities as first responders when national security is threatened. Since 9/11, they have taken on significant new duties and are facing dwindling resources. Further cutting their resources is not going to help enhance national security, and in fact these provisions would make our communities less safe.
The Tancredo Amendments Compromise Good Police Work and Safe Streets
Tancredo’s amendments would make it impossible for a victim of domestic violence or another crime to come forward and report the abuse without risking deportation. These amendments attempt to coerce states and localities into becoming immigration agents on the pretense of enhancing security. But police know they need the community’s trust in order to keep our streets safe. For this reason, hundreds of police officers around the country have said that such policies actually hurt public safety, and must be resisted.
Community policing has been successful in our diverse neighborhoods because police have proactively convinced immigrants that they should come forward and talk to local police. These amendments would chill immigrants from having contact with state and local police, and reverse gains made in reducing crime victimization all across the nation.
Tancredo’s Amendments Make States Choose Between Safe Streets and Critical Funding
States and localities with policies that would be nullified by these amendments support their policies because they are good for their communities and enhance public safety. Many states could be affected by this threat of lost dollars, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Congress should not be in the position of telling states and localities how to best protect their communities.
Incredibly, Mr. Tancredo will attempt to say that these states are uncooperative when it comes to communicating with the Department of Homeland Security about criminals in custody who are also foreign nationals. This is, of course, completely untrue. In fact, these states are often the ones who call the Department of Homeland Security the most when they have foreign criminals in custody.
Police Should Be Allowed To Do Their Jobs, And States Shouldn’t be Bullied by Congress
We should listen to the state and local governments and police officers who say “yes” to criminal enforcement but “no” to additional immigration enforcement duties, and who tell us that amendments like this would discourage immigrants from approaching law enforcement. The local policies these amendments target are in place for a reason-so that local police can do their jobs. Tancredo’s amendments take away state and local governments’ ability to decide which policies allow them to best “serve and protect” our communities. The amendments also fly in the face of states’ rights, by coercing states into adopting national standards on who is eligible for state identity documents.
These amendments are unsafe and un-American. I strongly urge you to oppose them.
Sincerely,
James Landrith