ACLU-NJ News - Immigrant Rights

Lima v. Newark Police Department

On January 23, 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice filed a lawsuit against the Newark Police Department on behalf of newspaper editor Roberto Lima, whom police arrested and held in custody until he relinquished photos his staff took of a dead body found in a Newark alleyway. Despite offering Newark police the original photographs his photographer had taken of the body, Newark police handcuffed Mr. Lima to a bench until he agreed to give them all copies and originals. In December, our complaint was amended to include claims against Essex County prosecutors and investigators after the Newark Police Department indicated that they relied on the advice of those individuals.

Current Status: The case is ongoing.

ACLU-NJ Celebrates 50 Years on the Front Lines of Freedom

Newark, N.J. - For five decades, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has been a gale force in the most critical social debates of our time and a vigilant guardian of civil rights for all.

In June, the ACLU-NJ will mark the 50th anniversary of its founding and celebrate its standing as one of the largest and most active affiliates in the nation. Created to counter the growing pressures on civil liberties in the state, the affiliate's first official meeting took place on the night of June 16, 1960. Since its start, the affiliate, which has continued to keep its headquarters in Newark, has seen its membership multiply nearly 10-fold, from 1,600 people to more than 15,000.

"We believe that the liberties in the Bill of Rights belong to every American, to all the people in New Jersey regardless of their political beliefs, race, religion or national origin," ACLU-NJ founder and longtime President Emil Oxfeld said in the original press release announcing the formation of the state's affiliate. "We believe these freedoms must be exercised if democracy in our state is to grow and thrive."

Oxfeld went on to list issues that desperately needed attention at the time - due process, racial discrimination, the separation of church and state, and freedom from censorship - all principles the ACLU still defends daily.

"While some of the issues raised in our cases over the years seem archaic by today's standards, many haven't changed at all," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, who has led the affiliate since 1999, including during the biggest membership spike in its history. "The law has advanced remarkably in areas like women's rights, lesbian and gay rights, and safeguarding personal privacy, but with issues like free speech, police practices and religious freedom, no fight ever stays won."

"The ACLU of New Jersey has been a leader in the crucial civil liberties battles of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the national ACLU. "While each new era brings a wave of assaults on freedom, the ACLU of New Jersey responds swiftly and decisively, protecting the rights of all Garden State residents. It has proven its value on the American political landscape."

Since opening its doors and springing into action - its first official undertaking was commending the Clifton Library's stance against banning books like Lady Chatterley's Lover - the ACLU-NJ has doggedly worked for justice and equality in New Jersey.

In its first decade the ACLU-NJ took strong action following the 1967 Newark Rebellion. Staffers took to the streets in the aftermath, painstakingly cataloguing police abuses to the ACLU-NJ would refer to in its demands for reform. The New Jersey affiliate also emerged even more progressive than the national ACLU, becoming one of the first state affiliates to take a stand against the Vietnam War.

Since those early years, the ACLU-NJ has grown into one of the country's largest and most active state affiliates, with a record of milestones that has earned it a role on the national stage. Among its accomplishments, the ACLU-NJ:

Defended the rights of women in schools, from a tennis star (represented by Ruth Bader Ginsburg) who won the right to play on the high school boys' tennis team, to the Princeton student who turned its Ivy League all-male eating clubs co-ed.
Blocked a bill requiring a "one-minute period of silence" for prayer in public schools in 1983.
Defended 12 motorists who had been racially profiled on the New Jersey Turnpike in the late 1990s.
Propelled New Jersey to become the first state in the nation to grant equal standing to gay and lesbian couples jointly adopting in 1997.
Successfully challenged the state's ban on late-term abortion in 1998 and a law requiring parents to sign off on a minor's abortion in 2000.
Challenged secret detentions and organized locally, fending off attempts to chip away at individual rights following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Defeated local laws written to exclude immigrants from housing, won humane working conditions for immigrants, and helped enforce the rights of young immigrants to attend public school.
Established stronger First Amendment protections in schools and malls, as well as developments run by homeowners associations.

The ACLU-NJ is celebrating the clients, attorneys, leaders and volunteers - many involved in the cases highlighted above - who have built its legacy, from its founders to its future. The stories of these 50 Faces of Liberty can be found at the ACLU-NJ website, http://www.aclu-nj.org

"Society has changed dramatically since our founding, but we've never lost the fire that fuels the ACLU's advocacy," Jacobs added. "We can't always predict what challenges lie ahead for liberty in a changing world, but whatever they are, the ACLU stands ready to defend the fundamental rights of ordinary Americans."

The year-long commemoration will culminate November 4 at the NJ Freedom Fest: A night of laughter and liberties, hosted by comedian Jimmy Tingle and featuring faces from the ACLU past and present, to be held at the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker Earns 'C' Average Junior Year

NEWARK - School is out for Newark's students, but Mayor Cory Booker's junior-year report card on civil liberties has just been released by the ACLU-NJ. The mayor passed, but not with flying colors. At the end of his third year in office, the Stanford and Yale-educated All-American and Rhodes Scholar earned a "C" average in civil liberties, with his worst grade, a "D," in the area of Police Practices.

"Mayor Booker deserves high marks in public speaking, but he has room to improve on the subject of civil liberties," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The Mayor came to City Hall promising to protect civil liberties, but when it's time to put those principles into practice, he hasn't lived up to his potential."

The good news: Mayor Booker earned a "B" on Immigrant Rights, and a "B" in Open Government.

The bad news: Mayor Booker earned a "C-" for Free Speech, and a "D" in Police Practices - and just barely.

To review the Mayor's report card in full detail, see: http://www.aclu-nj.org/newarkreportcard (230k PDF)

"This report card is more than just handing out a grade -- we're looking at the real lives of people in this city and adding up the costs to their rights," said Jacobs. "The Booker administration still needs to learn that you can't have public safety without public trust, and you can only earn that trust by respecting the rights of the people."

ACLU-NJ Files Brief Defending Immigrants' Right to Housing

PLAINFIELD, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice and the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (Fried Frank) filed a friend of the court brief in the case Del Rio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties, Inc., in order to protect the right to housing for Latinos and other immigrants and to thwart anti-immigrant efforts to compel landlords to enforce federal immigration law.

"It's a huge stretch to claim that RICO, a law aimed at dismantling organized crime, stops landlords from renting to people they are legally allowed to rent to," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "The first attempts to run immigrants out of town failed in Hazleton, Pa., and Riverside, N.J., and this new backdoor attempt is no better."

The brief was filed on behalf of leading organizations and institutions that represent the interests of, and provide services to, immigrant communities in New Jersey, including: the New Jersey Institution for Social Justice, the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, CATA: the Farmworkers' Support Committee, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

"Landlords are neither qualified nor authorized to act as de facto immigration agents," said ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project attorney Eunice Lee. "They lack the skills and training to make immigration status determinations, and forcing them to do so will lead to wrongful denials of housing."

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an organization that has sponsored a series of anti-immigrant municipal housing ordinances throughout the country, alleges that by renting apartments to undocumented immigrants, landlords are in violation of federal statutes which impose criminal penalties for harboring undocumented persons. In effect, plaintiffs are seeking to have federal law interpreted in a manner that will compel landlords to screen and investigate the immigration status of prospective tenants.

"Latinos and others -- regardless of nationality or immigration status -- will face additional scrutiny when attempting to secure or maintain housing because landlords will be hesitant to rent to individuals they perceive to be immigrants based solely on race or language ability," said Cynthia Valenzuela, MALDEF's Director of Litigation. "This is a dangerous and unlawful precedent that would ripple far beyond New Jersey and create a national climate of fear and racial profiling in the provision of housing."

Local anti-immigrant municipal housing ordinances have been consistently struck down by courts that found them to be plainly discriminatory and preempted by federal law. Since efforts to displace immigrants through unconstitutional local ordinances have been unsuccessful, IRLI now brings this suit that threatens to destabilize local communities and vulnerable populations by inducing the wrongful denial of housing to Latinos and other immigrants, creating fear in immigrant communities, and otherwise, sanctioning the wrongful denial of civil rights.

"New Jersey's immigrant service providers are deeply troubled by this effort to deprive immigrant families of a roof over their heads," said Bassina Farbenblum, an attorney at Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice. "This lawsuit is yet another misguided attempt by anti-immigrant groups to end-run state and federal anti-discrimination laws and deny immigrant men, women and children their basic human right to shelter."

The amicus brief, filed by leading organizations on behalf of organizations that represent or provide services to immigrant communities, urges the court to reject the claims presented in this unprecedented case and argues that a determination in plaintiffs favor will impermissibly require landlords to engage in immigration status determinations, and will inevitably result in unlawful discrimination against immigrants (including U.S. citizens and lawful residents) in New Jersey and throughout the country.

Read the ACLU-NJ Amicus Brief

Connolly Amicus Brief (696k PDF)

ACLU to Unveil New Immigration Report at Human Rights Forum

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey released a new report today, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, giving an overview of the state's landscape for immigrants. The report will be released at a New Jersey immigration forum this evening commemorating International Human Rights Day, hosted by the ACLU-NJ, the American Friends Service Committee and a dozen of the leading immigration groups in the state.

"The anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a time to take stock of where we are as a country with respect to human rights and examine how far we still have left to go," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Our report looks at the state of human rights for New Jersey's immigrants and the direction we must take as a state to guarantee that their rights are honored rather than denied."

The report puts New Jersey's diversity in perspective, offering statistics about its ethnic makeup while recounting its history, including recent history: immigration raids, driver's license restrictions, and the Attorney General's August 2007 directive prohibiting police from asking immigration status of victims and witnesses.

"Immigrant rights are human rights," said Amy Gottlieb, director of the American Friends Service Committee's Program on Human Rights in Newark. "Right now, we have a duty to make sure that the next four years don't bring the same hostile policies we've seen in the past four. We as advocates are strategizing to create a society that pays attention to human rights every day, not just on the day designated to commemorate them."

Tonight's forum will address the most pressing issues for New Jersey immigrants, including how human rights guarantee immigrants' rights, the effect of the recession on New Jersey's immigrant communities, and how the political climate toward immigrants in America will fare in an Obama administration.

Please join us for our immigration forum tonight:

Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Immigration Forum
Wednesday, December 10, 7 p.m.
89 Market Street, Eighth Floor, Newark
973-854-0403 for information

Resources

The Rights of Immigrants in New Jersey (826k PDF) a report issued by ACLU-NJ.

AG's Guidance Needed On Cops and Immigrants

The following appeared in the Star-Ledger on July 27, 2007. It was written by Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director and Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director.

Ever since the mayor of Morristown launched a campaign to have town police officers deputized to engage in federal immigration enforcement, some townspeople and others have hoped, unsuccessfully, for intervention by the state attorney general.

The mayor's idea is to give local police the power to investigate people's immigration status, take immigrants into custody, and hand those they suspect of violating immigration laws over to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where they would potentially face deportation proceedings.

In addition to human and civil rights advocates, Gov. Jon Corzine and numerous law enforcement professionals - including Morristown Police Chief Peter Demnitz - have spoken out against this role for local police. The central reason for their opposition is that acting as immigration enforcers makes it difficult for police to do their primary job: to serve and protect.

Indeed, when immigrants fear that the police will send them to ICE, they're too often afraid to report crimes against them or come forward as witnesses to crimes against others. Trust between the police and community erodes, and the police have a harder time combating crime.

Things spun out of control in Morristown after the city council endorsed the mayor's efforts. Hostilities between immigrant community members and those supporting the mayor's plan have grown. Many of those community members are American citizens or lawful residents. A climate of alienation has been fueled by events like tomorrow's demonstration to promote the mayor's plan. The demonstration is sponsored by a national organization called the ProAmerica Society, and apparently will be joined by white supremacists.

Seeking guidance, dozens of people concerned about this issue and the climate in Morristown - including groups as diverse as American Friends Service Committee, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault - have gone to the Attorney General, New Jersey's chief law enforcement officer, for help.

Unfortunately, neither former Attorney General Stuart Rabner (recently sworn in as the state's chief justice) nor current Attorney General Anne Milgram has stepped in to either prohibit such arrangements or develop guidelines for local police cooperation with federal agencies. By remaining silent, they have missed an opportunity to give New Jersey towns needed information and guidance, to show leadership in statewide law enforcement concerns, and to relieve tension in the community.

The matter clearly raises legal questions for the Attorney General's interpretation. For example, how do police officers work for both the federal government and the state government, when under citizens under New Jersey's state constitution affords residents more rights than the U.S. constitution? Which master do they serve? What are the best practices for successful criminal law enforcement, and how are they affected if police have this dual role? What are the implications for taxpayers on potential racial profiling lawsuits that might result from this practice?

There is precedent for the Office of Attorney General to address best practices for law enforcement in New Jersey. For example, former Attorney General John Farmer Jr. established a policy that all New Jersey police departments must use sequential line-ups, proven to be the best method for eliciting accurate crime witness identifications.

In addition, former Attorney General Peter Harvey sought to formulate policy on videotaping of police interrogations.

Whatever policies the attorney general promulgates on the Morristown issue may please or displease the various sides. However, once she steps in, the dialogue will move from a story about community members pitted against one another, to a much needed debate about best law enforcement policy and police practices.

The attorney general's input is also critical because this issue is not limited to Morristown. Similar dialogues and tensions have arisen in many other New Jersey towns.

The attorney general's leadership here is overdue. Attorney General Milgram should not make the same mistake that some of her predecessors made with racial profiling, waiting for the spark to ignite, or a tragedy to occur, before taking action. New Jersey deserves better.

1 in 5 NJ Schools Puts Up Barriers for Immigrant Children

NEWARK - As New Jersey students head back to school, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has released findings that at least 20 percent of New Jersey public school districts are breaking the law by asking for information that would reveal a parent or child's Social Security number or immigration status as a prerequisite for enrollment. On Friday, the ACLU-NJ sent letters to Department of Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and the 187 offending school districts in New Jersey asking them to more aggressively enforce the laws that stop schools from requesting Social Security numbers or immigration status.

"The law is clear -- so why are so many schools still illegally requesting this information?" asked ACLU-NJ Racial Justice Attorney Nadia Seeratan, who oversaw the study. "The Constitution promises every child in the United States a right to education; requiring proof of citizenship as a condition of enrollment breaks that promise."

Beginning in July, the ACLU-NJ attempted to survey 635 New Jersey school entities listed by county on the Department of Education website (615 districts as well as 20 charter schools, which have unique application processes) to assess the legality of their enrollment requirements. ACLU-NJ staff and volunteers successfully contacted 516, or 80 percent, of all school districts and charter schools.

The survey found that 139 - over a quarter of those successfully contacted - illegally required information that would reveal the Social Security number or immigration status of students seeking to enroll despite state, federal and constitutional laws prohibiting the practice. Another 48 suggested that immigration information would help in the registration process. Thus, a total of 187 - more than one in three - responded in violation of the law or in a manner prone to deter student enrollment.

At least 35 school districts in the state requested Social Security numbers or immigration information on their written enrollment forms, including Hackensack, Hoboken and Roselle Park.

Monmouth County was the worst offender, with 26 districts requiring citizenship or immigration-related information to enroll.

When the ACLU-NJ conducted a similar survey two years ago, it found that 58 of the 224 school districts surveyed required proof of a child's immigration status. Of those, nearly two-thirds said they would remove sections of their enrollment forms asking for students' status. In this year's follow-up survey, 21 of the offending school districts from 2006 still required that information, including Irvington, Trenton and Middlesex.

"Two years after our first survey of schools, we've found the same problems, and in many cases, in the same schools," said Seeratan. "Many of New Jersey's children won't have equal access to an education unless schools follow the law and treat all students equally."

Attending school is one of the fastest ways for immigrant children to assimilate in the United States, and an education empowers students to become productive members of an open society. Brown v. the Board of Education called education "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" and said success in this country is nearly impossible without one. A 2004 Pew Hispanic Center study found that Latinos in New Jersey were the most likely to feel that discrimination in school interfered with their ability to succeed in this country.

"Every child in New Jersey has a right to an education," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. "And it's in our best interests as a society for all children to be educated. New Jersey, as one of the most diverse states in the nation, has a special obligation to make sure all children, from every background and walk of life, can have a solid education."

Further Information

Letter to Education Commissioner Davy (240k PDF)
List of Districts Violating (156k PDF)
Fact Sheet - Access to Education (15k PDF)

ACLU-NJ Challenges Arbitrary Police Fees for March

Local officials imposed an unconstitutional police fee of more than $1,500
on CATA, the organizers of this May 1, 2007 march in Bridgeton, N.J.
Photo by David Bacon

En Español

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Farmworkers' Support Committee today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the City of Bridgeton for charging a fee of more than $1,500 for an immigrant rights March held on May 1.

"This fee amounts to a user's tax on free speech and that is unconstitutional," said Frank Corrado, who on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is the volunteer attorney for the Farmworkers' Support Committee, also known as El Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas or CATA. "Bridgeton is responsible for providing police and other government services for all forms of use of its public streets, including marches or parades. Imposition of these fees will mean that only the wealthy will be afforded the right to speak out on issues, and our Constitution thankfully forbids that."

This year, as last year, CATA held an immigrant rights March on May 1 in Bridgeton to express support for immigration reform.

In 2006, CATA's march was not charged any police or cleanup fees. As it did last year, CATA this year applied for a permit and worked with the police and the city to determine the route. Both years, the march occurred without incident.

However, this year Bridgeton demanded a $1,800 police fee and a $200 cleanup deposit. After negotiations between CATA and Bridgeton, the city agreed to drop its requirement that fees be paid prior to the march but added that it would bill CATA after the march.

Several weeks after the May 1 march, CATA received a letter from the city requesting payment for "additional" police expenses for the event, amounting to more than $1,500. CATA requested that the fees be withdrawn, but in a June 12, 2007 letter responding to the group, the city said that it would pursue its demand for the payment and, moreover, would continue to seek such reimbursement in the future.

"I don't see the logic the city of Bridgeton is using in prohibiting our rights to free expression that we all have living in this great country," said Mariza Ibarra, CATA board member and Bridgeton resident. "We are a vulnerable part of the population and we are only struggling to obtain dignity in this community and country."

In its legal complaint, the ACLU-NJ said Bridgeton officials exercised "unfettered, arbitrary discretion" in billing CATA for police expenses, since the city does not have an ordinance that authorizes it to impose fees for marches or parades.

CATA originated in 1975 as the ACLU-NJ Farmworkers' Project. CATA later reorganized independently as a migrant worker-organized membership organization that advocates for the human rights of migrant and immigrant workers. CATA has extensive membership throughout South Jersey and a committee of active leaders in Bridgeton that has organized both May 1 marches, as well as other activities in the community.

The lawsuit, CATA v. Bridgeton, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.

More information on CATA is available at http://www.cata-farmworkers.org

ACLU-NJ Offers Analysis of AG's Flawed Directive

The following op-ed, "AG Directive Lacks" appeared in the Trenton Times on September 8, 2007. It was written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. Background at: AG's Guidance Needed On Cops and Immigrants.

After months of review, outreach and internal debate, New Jersey's Attorney General Anne Milgram finally issued a directive on the issue of what role local police should play in federal immigration enforcement.

In taking this step, Milgram asserted herself as New Jersey's chief law-enforcement officer, attempting to give local law enforcement the long-awaited guidance needed to resolve this "issue on the ground" in places as disparate as Trenton, Princeton, Morristown and Newark.

The directive says that local police must inquire about immigration status upon arrest of a suspect for an indictable offense, and report individuals suspected of being undocumented to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also says that police may not ask witnesses, victims or people seeking assistance about their status.

The spirit of the directive seems right. It includes strong statements that the primary responsibility for enforcing the nation's immigration laws rests with the federal government rather than state or local governments. It also warns of the consequences of entangling local police in immigration enforcement, and reiterates the state's commitment to combating racial profiling.

Unfortunately for police officers, local officials, community advocates and the public alike, the di-rective raises more questions than it answers. Most of these questions stem not from what the directive says, but from what it doesn't say.

For example, although the in tent seems clear, it doesn't explicitly bar local police officers from inquiring about immigration status prior to making an arrest.

This omission gets to the heart of the concerns law-enforcement professionals have about being called on to enforce federal immigration laws: that it would undermine the trust between local police and the community; interfere with police officers' ability to serve and protect their communities, and ultimately threaten public safety.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed these very concerns in a 2006 report, stating, "Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts."

The attorney general's directive leaves other important questions unanswered. It's oddly specific on such issues as how local reports are to be conveyed to ICE -- telephone or fax, for example. But it's mute on such critical matters as how police are to determine a suspect's immigration status to begin with.

Should they ask and rely on what a suspect tells them? Should they demand documentation from the suspect? If so, which documents? Should they search computer databases with immigration status information?

Who knows? The directive is silent.

The directive requires that police notify ICE when they have "reason to believe" that an ar rested individual may be undocumented. But it doesn't indicate what information should be used or what standards applied in forming that belief. Absent such guidance on what constitutes a "reason to believe," the entire process becomes ambiguous and open to abuse.

In fact, as written, the directive increases the potential for racial profiling and discrimination. While it repeatedly cautions against racially motivated enforcement, by failing to define specific tools or guidelines for inquiry, the directive leaves the door wide open for discriminatory assumptions based on race or ethnicity.

Racism is something that each of us must fight to reject, as we breathe it in the air. It functions at both the conscious and subconscious levels, and to protect against it we must have strong policies and procedures in place that will help ensure that it doesn't have a role in policing (or any other realm of government, business or public life).

Finally, even the section of the directive that seeks to protect witnesses and victims raises intractable questions. In a domestic violence situation, for example, where it's not always clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, how can an officer comply with the directive?

Law enforcement and local officials need clear procedures that will help them do their jobs and guard against both unintentional rights deprivations and racial profiling lawsuits. The directive falls short in these and other respects.

We urge the attorney general to revise or supplement the directive so that it provides the sound, thoughtful guidance needed by all parties, and to make it consistent with its laudable spirit of fairness.

ACLU-NJ Urges AG to Revisit Flawed Directive

Comments on Attorney General Directive No. 2007-3 Concerning Local Police Engagement in Immigration Law By Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director.

After months of consideration and meeting with countless interested parties - including immigrant and civil rights groups, law enforcement professionals, and advocates who work with domestic violence victims - last week New Jersey's Attorney General finally issued a long-awaited directive on the issue of what role local police can play in federal immigration enforcement. (Background at: AG's Guidance Needed On Cops and Immigrants).

In a nutshell, the directive says that local police must inquire about immigration status upon arrest of a suspect for an indictable offense, and report individuals suspected of being undocumented to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also says that police may not ask witnesses, victims or people seeking assistance about their status.

The directive includes strong statements about immigration enforcement being the primary duty of the federal government, about the counterproductive consequences of entangling local police in immigration enforcement, and about the state's commitment to combating racial profiling.

Nevertheless, for police professionals and community advocates alike, the directive raises more questions than it answers. The problem is what the directive doesn't say.

For example, it doesn't explicitly prohibit local police from inquiring about immigration status prior to arresting an individual. This omission gets to the heart of the concerns of law enforcement professionals who have spoken out against local police engaging in immigration enforcement: acting as immigration enforcers makes it more difficult for police to serve and protect their communities. The Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed this sentiment in a 2006 report, stating that, "Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts."

The directive's failure to explicitly prohibit officers from asking about immigration status prior to arrest jeopardizes trust between police and community, and consequently threatens public safety.

The directive is also inconsistent; it does not limit local police from making pre-arrest inquiries about status unless they have established a formal relationship with ICE allowing them to act as a federal immigration officer (287g status), in which case they cannot make inquiries unless and until an arrest takes place. This has inspired the Morristown mayor (whose efforts to have town police officers deputized under 287g brought this issue to the forefront), to threaten in a letter to US Attorney Chris Christie to have local police start asking for the immigration status of everyone stopped for ticketing.

Another problem is that the directive, while very specific on some details (such as the means - telephone, fax, etc. - with which reports can be transmitted to ICE), does not provide critical guidance that police need. For example, it says that police must make an inquiry about status upon arrest, but it does not provide any guidance on what that inquiry might entail - asking the individual? - document review? - database checks?

The directive further requires that police notify ICE when they have "reason to believe" that an arrested individual may be undocumented. The directive does not indicate what information should be used, or standards applied, in forming that belief. And, with no specifics on the parameters of the inquiry on which the "reason to believe" should be based, the procedure is further confused and open to abuse.

This lack of guidance increases the potential for racial profiling or discrimination. While the directive repeatedly cautions against racially motivated enforcement, by failing to elaborate on the inquiry with specific guidelines or tools, it leaves the door wide open for discriminatory assumptions based on race or ethnicity. Racism is something that each of us must fight to reject as we breathe it in the air. It functions at both the conscious and subconscious levels, and to protect against it we must have strong policies and procedures in place that will help ensure that it doesn't have a role in policing, or any other arena of government, business or public life.

The directive boasts that "New Jersey has taken a leadership position in eliminating racially-influenced policing, or racial profiling." This is hardly the case; most actions that the state has taken have been forced upon it, such as the public demanding hearings, or the federal government requiring a consent decree. This directive, unless amended, represents perpetuation of the "more talk than walk" that New Jersey has demonstrated again and again when it comes to reforming police practices related to racial profiling.

Finally, even the section of the directive that seeks to protect witnesses and victims raises issues. In many incidents and disputes, including domestic violence situations, it's not always clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, potentially leaving police unable to comply with the directive.

The directive falls short of what New Jersey police departments need to guide policies and practices on involvement with questions of immigration status. Rather than providing sound and clear policies that would spare hundreds New Jersey towns and cities from the battling these issues out on the ground, this directive muddies the water by offering incomplete and inconsistent guidance. Before this issue further inflames towns like Morristown and cities like Newark, the AG should revise her first directive to make it right.