San Francisco District Attorney Calls for End to Security Communities Program

April 6, 2013

On March 14, 2013, the San Francisco District Attorney, George Gascón, spoke before the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission. Here is a transcript of his conversation with the Commission:

District Attorney George Gascón: Thank you Chairman Hing and thank you for all the commissioners and all the work that you do. As chairman indicated I – first let start off by saying that I’m an immigrant myself if that doesn’t become obvious about my accent it will shortly. You know, I emigrated from Cuba, I was raised in Los Angeles and I’ve been most of my professional career was with the LAPD working in immigrant communities. My parents are still primary monolingual Spanish speakers so I understand the immigrant experience from multiple levels. As a police officer, I worked in communities that are primary immigrants communities and so frankly during my formation years I worked around immigrant communities that was sort of the norm for me and pretty much accept it. You know that in fact the majority of the people in LA County today and have been for many years are either immigrants or they are first generation Americans. In 2006, I was recruited and I became the Chief of Police of Mesa Arizona which is the third largest city in the state of Arizona. I got there and immediately faced what I felt was a very antagonistic environment not only against immigrants but frankly against Latinos in general. The realities of many Latinos in Arizona are second, third, even fourth, and fifth generation. I had people working with me whose relatives were in Arizona before Arizona was part of the United States. And yet they were being told that they should go back to Mexico which I found that to be extremely offensive. And then there was this environment, this anti-immigrant environment that permeated throughout politics in the state where immigrants were being blamed for every problem whether it was an economic problem or it was a crime problem; and I knew just based on my own personal experience that was not the case. First of all, immigrants are not more likely to be criminals than anyone else. In fact, there are a lot of studies that actually indicate that first generation immigrants are less likely to be involved in criminal activity than you know, first, second, third generation Americans and a lot of that has to do with the assimilation process. You know, usually people when they first come to this country, regardless where they come from, their desire is to come in and keep a very low profile. They are coming here generally either for political or economic freedom or both and they just want to come in and work and just stay out of, you know, they want to stay out of sight. So I knew that the whole concept that immigrants were causing the majority of the crime in Arizona was untrue. So as I started to fight that concept publicly and talking about it and actually gathered statistical information to show that wasn’t the case; I started to encounter some really strong anti-immigrant sentiments and very racist sentiments. I started to have people from primarily the Latino community but even other communities coming to me and telling me stories about immigrants or people that looked like they were immigrants being stopped by the police and being detained. I even actually got to see cases of U.S. born people of Latin descent being held in county jails for, you know ten, twelve, fifteen, eighteen hours in one case until this person could prove that he was a U.S. citizen. So I started to write about it, I started to talk very outspokenly about it and then the next thing that happened is that the anti-immigrant groups including the Minutemen would follow me any time that my name was published as a speaker. In a particular event, there would be people from the Minutemen; they’re waiting often, they’ll be yelling at those that came to the meeting, they would have cameras that would film people going in then they would post it which became very, very intimidating for many folks. At the same time, there was a big push to continue to have local police engage in immigration enforcement which I personally believe it’s very detrimental to public safety; and the reason why it’s detrimental to public safety is multiple folds. Number one in order for local police to be effective and local authorities to be effective in fighting crime they need to be trusted by every community that they serve. If you have segments of the community that are fearful of the police and they would not report crimes and they would not work with the police you create a vacuum and that vacuum generally gets filled by people that are committing crimes. So what I noticed increasingly in Arizona that there were certain neighborhoods that were being completely overtaken by gangs. And the local residents were unwilling to report to the police because they were fearful that reporting to the police will lead to either their personal deportation or a family member or neighbor. So those were the fights that I started to engage with Sheriff Arpaio, who is known to be one of the biggest nativist in the US today. I mean, he has become sort of the symbol of the anti-immigrant move. A lot of this culminated in my actually going to the Justice Department and complaining, raising a number of civil rights violations which led to an investigation. Myself and then Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and a couple of others joined me and we made a formal complaint to the FBI that opened up the investigation which led to the current litigation that is going on there. Much later, we had the problem with the SB 1070. I think most of you are familiar that was a legislation that was passed by the Arizona legislative basically making almost anything that involved an immigrant, you know, creating all this new crimes that a lot of them thankfully had been deemed to be unconstitutional. I believe some of them are problematic areas that still remain in the books. The one that basically has local authorities continue to enforce or try to enforce immigration laws. So you know, I have been actually involved in all the litigations that went against SB 1070 and then going throughout the country similar legislations in Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, and I forgot what the other state is.

Chair Bill Ong Hing: Alabama.

District Attorney George Gascón: Alabama right. I have been involved in every one of those cases. I know that there is also a discussion that is going closer to home and it has to do with Secure Communities and the applications of Secure Communities to local authorities. And I personally believe that Secure Communities needs to be either completely eliminated or it needs to be tremendously reformed. I believe, as the former speaker was saying a few moments ago, most of the people that are being detained or being deported under Secure Communities are not criminals. In fact, often they’re people that have been arrested in cases like, for instance, the victim of domestic violence and in a case the police is unable to determine who the primary aggressor is. And you know, when the police can’t determine who the primary aggressor is, it is not unusual for the police to arrest both the man and the woman. Or in cases where you may have single gender family dispute, again they may end up arresting the victim and the offender at the same time. Under Secure Communities, it is not unusual for the victim actually to end up in deportation proceedings. So I think there has to be a complete revamping of Secure Communities. Or frankly, probably the better answer I think would be at this point is to eliminate that format to deal with real criminals that are here from other nations. And then finally, I think that the really where I hope that this conversation is going to lead to is the holistic or comprehensive reform of our immigration system. The reality is that we have an immigration system that is antiquated, it was impassioned work of legislation, a lot of it was written by emotions, a lot of it is written by phobias against immigrants and there’s too many reasons why this needs to be altered. First of all, we have about eleven million people in this country today that are here, have been here many for many years they have families here. They’re what I call hybrid families where some of the kids may be U.S. citizens U.S. born, others may not be. You may have a spouse that is an American citizen or a legal resident but another one that is here without authority and those are realities that some people have been paying taxes. They have made enormous contributions for our economy, our social fabric and that has to be confronted. We have to be realistic about it and there has to be a thoughtful path not only to legalization but I believe that there has to be a thoughtful path eventually for those that want to be U.S. citizens to become U.S. citizens. I think that the way to do that has to be practical. We can’t continue to have this dialogue about people going back to their country of origin before they can come here — that’s completely unrealistic. I think that there has to be a permitting process that leads to permanent residence and then, like any other immigrant, within the period of five years if they decide to become a U.S. citizen and assuming they would qualify they should be able to have that. I think secondarily, we have to create an immigration system that recognizes the economic and social realities of the United States today. The reason why the large number of unauthorized immigrants in this country that we have is because we have attracted these people. We have an incredible thirst for labor in many industries whether it is the agricultural industry or service industry or technology. And the reality is that that thirst for industry will continue. For labor will continue to expand primarily because we are not reproducing ourselves as a society as fast as our economic needs are so the reality is that for the next, probably the, next fifty years or so the United States is going to continue to import labor and this is going to come in many different shapes and forms. And we have to create an immigration policy that recognizes that and allows for people to come here and be able to work and do so legally so we don’t create this underground economy that impacts not only the immigrant community but also impacts our non-immigrant community. When you have undocumented immigration filling a lot of work opportunities you have a depressing factor on the labor market and you actually have a lowering of salary and benefits and all those other things that are important to maintain a good economic vibrancy in our country and you create sort of a two class system. You create an unauthorized immigration workforce that is near being exploited working under conditions that most of us would never accept for ourselves but then you also have the depressing impact on the native workforce that is competing with this other workforce that is obviously willing to work for significantly less. That is a byproduct of the type of immigration system that we have to lose. I believe that has to be fixed and I think that the time is now and, frankly, it is up to people like us here today and many others to make sure that we put sufficient pressure on our Congress and work with the President to make sure that we have thoughtful immigration reform that is going to address this issue. I think that we are at a unique point in our history probably in generations and that reform in our immigration system today is possible and is real. Even those in the Republican Party who probably a year ago would have completely opposed any kind of discussion over immigration reform are recognized today that for survivability the Republican Party must be part of the immigration reform discussions. So I think what it is important at the same time is that we don’t squander this opportunity by bickering amongst ourselves. I think that we have to be realistic about what we want to see, we have to be focused, and we have to be able to take, you know, seize the opportunity. So I’m very excited that this is a unique opportunity for us, a ripe opportunity that I personally would not have foreseen only two or three years ago and I believe that the time to act is now. So I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to speak it is a real honor and continue to do the work that you are doing and certainly I hope that you call me if there’s anything that I can do to assist in further the work of this commission. Thank you very much.

Chair Bill Ong Hing: Thank you. [Applause] District Attorney Gascón I want to let you know we’ll get you a copy of our recommendations that we have twenty one tentative recommendations and your comments are very consistent with all of them including, of course, the neutral reform and also the proposal number eighteen to eliminate, to abandon secure communities. There is a provision, one of our tentative recommendations number nineteen is to allow immigration judges to once again have the discretion to grant waivers for people who have been convicted or was classified as an aggravated felony. If the immigration judge believes that the person is rehabilitated, remorseful, has atoned and I’m wondering if that recognition of rehabilitation — the possibility for somebody to rehabilitate is consistent with your views of the criminal justice system.

District Attorney George Gascón: Absolutely, I think that we have to recognize that there has to be an avenue for people to redeem themselves, right? I think that if someone made a mistake and they are able to show through their deeds and their behavior that they have corrected that incident and whatever occurred at that time there should be an opportunity for that to be looked upon and reevaluated; and I believe that the best place to have that is in the hands of a judge. So I believe that is something that should be discussed. My only concern and I really don’t know the answer to this so I’m just going to, you know, just going to really put it out there more as a question that is a statement of a decision is obtaining comprehensive immigration reform is going to be the broader of compromise. There is going to be a lot of giving and taking that is going to have to take place by both sides and I think that those of us that are strong opponents of immigration reform are going to have to be prepared to compromise in some areas. I’m not sure what those areas are so I really put that more as a question for consideration than I do as a statement of you know really being strongly thinking about it in one way or the other. The problem with this process it that it is with any political process but I think in immigration more so than any other a lot of the things that are going on are driven by emotions and are driven by fear. And one of the things that the anti-immigrants groups have been able to do very, very successfully for many years is sort of paint immigrants as a more criminal prone group than other groups and that has created a tremendous amount of fear in many communities that otherwise would be very friendly to an immigration reform process. So we have to be very careful that we don’t provide ammunition for those that are opposing immigration reform to somehow make it look that this is a free pass for people that has committed serious crimes. If you look at Secure Communities is a perfect example a lot of the rhetoric from security communities would be about the thousands of criminals that are being deported. Well, you and I know that actually that’s incorrect, that by and large majority of people that have been deported under Secure Communities are not criminals, right? But that is the rhetoric that goes out there. So we have to be very thoughtful that when we especially we are talking about felons that have committed serious crimes for instance sex crimes or serious violent crimes even though we may believe that some of these folks have rehabilitated still. We have to be careful that we don’t create a situation where we are going to be risking the possibility for a greater good in the all-around.

Chair Bill Ong Hing: Very nice.

Christopher Punongbayan: May I ask you a question Mr. Gascón?

District Attorney George Gascón: Yes, sure.

Christopher Punongbayan: I just want to use this opportunity to in my further conversations on this issue my name is Chris from the Asian Law Caucus here in San Francisco and one issue that we are all concerned about are the eleven million undocumented and what barriers would be put in place because of politics that prevent them from being able to become U.S. citizens. And so one of the flash points that’s upcoming is on this issue of the types of barriers and they include potentially minor criminal convictions that may have been committed during the course of someone’s being in the United States so these could be status crimes meaning driving without a license because they are undocumented. They cannot lawfully obtain a license or minor crimes of necessity because many undocumented immigrants live in improvised conditions because of our inability to integrate and so. And one other very potential dangerous kind of step that Congress is contemplating is exclusions based on gang affiliation and this does not tie to any criminal conviction but it may be on the table for exclusion of people who are perceived to be affiliated with gangs. And so I noticed that maybe the first time that you are hearing about this but is an issue that immigrant rights advocates are very concerned about so I would hope to have the opportunity to discuss further any public positions you may take on the issue.

District Attorney George Gascón: Right and it’s not the first time and this is something that I’ve actually, you know, not only have I been approached by others but, frankly, something that based on my own experience I know that is an issue. I think that what I would advocate is for a very thoughtful process of identifying what parts of this alleged criminal behavior is really problematic and what part is not. For instance I would actually add another one that you did not mention and it is illegal reentry, right? Illegal reentry is a felony is really a status crime and most of the people that were assigned a deportation agreement to avoid prosecution and left the country and then came back. They quite, frankly, did not understand the consequences that would flow from that agreement often did it without the assistance of counsel, many of them and I know this from personal experience have been dealt with a lot of paperwork incarcerated in local jails in Arizona for months. They were quite desperate to get out of jail they signed an agreement to self deport or to, you know, to leave without a hearing not understanding that their return to the United States will actually make them a felon. And I think that those are cases where most reasonable people will say that shouldn’t inhibit your ability to become a legal resident and eventually have a path for citizenship. If that’s what you desire likewise I think driving without an authorized driver’s license and actually I want to separate that because driving without a driver’s license is a misdemeanor, an infraction depending what state you are. So I think that after that I would say that infractions on misdemeanor probably should be taken off the table meaning that they should not be a barrier. Then I think that when you’re looking at the alleged series of conduct those that were aimed to felonies I think that there has to be a stratification of those. On the other hand, I think that when you have people that have been perhaps convicted of violent crimes, like a robbery, an armed robbery, of rape those types of event. I think that we need to be prepared to say even if there was rehabilitation that that may not be the ones that we are going to fight for today, and again I want to repeat what I said earlier I’m not necessarily stating a position. I’m really posing a question as we move forward in this process because this is going to be a process of compromise and this is going to be a process of, it’s going to be heavily driven by emotions and there is going to be a lot of misinformation out there and would you want to be the banner for the other side to say that the pro-immigrant groups are trying to keep rapists and murders here. Which, that would be the headline, right? So it’s got to be some thoughtfulness about how this is done.