Commissioner George Lucier repeats the same meaningless arguments without addressing the real issues

By DJ Kelly
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009

 E-mail this page    Printer-friendly page

Pittsboro, NC - Chatham County Commissioner Lucier sent a statement to the Chatham Conservative Voice on Wednesday about withdrawing from a public forum the group was sponsoring for Thursday evening. The statement was made public yesterday. Here is a rebuttal of the argumentts made in that statement.

This was always promoted as a forum on the Resolution, not about general issues. It was not intended to be specifically about 287(g) but also about why they felt the need to pass a Resolution. Something that they still have not addressed.
Let's see, they didn't have a problem with outside support from:

• El Pueblo,
• ACLU,
• Southern Coalition for Social Justice,
• North Carolina Justice Center,
• City of Durham Human Relations Office,
• Orange County Human Rights/ Relations Office.

Nor the fact that members of our Human Relations Commission include:

• the founder of the Hispanic Liaison,
• the former Advocacy Director of El Pueblo and registered lobbyist
• a current employee of the NC Justice Center

Heather has done her best to control any outside groups and since it's to be a moderated forum, there's no reason to expect them to have any undue influence even if any do show up. There were no restraints on who could show up and speak at the last BoC meeting.

I sent a detailed email to all the commissioners explaining my concerns about the resolution and only Sally Kost replied after I sent a second email on a different issue to acknowledge my thorough research on the subject. But I have yet to receive any answers to my questions and concerns from any of the commissioners.

I had intended to attend that meeting but could not do so because of illness. I was undecided whether or not to speak since I had already sent the commissioners much more information that I could express in three minutes. Since is was just supposed to be a 30 minute public input session I was more interested in the upcoming CCV forum where some of my questions might actually be answered.

Furthermore there was no opposition to outside supporters expressing their opinions although there were at least a few present at the meeting.

Actually, they are not. You continue to repeat the same meaningless arguments but have yet to address the real issues. We did not qualify for 287(g), no one was pushing for 287(g) so why waste time and energy on a worthless resolution that changed nothing but divided the community and questioned the integrity of our local law enforcement agencies.
We have needed a new detention center for years. I sincerely hope you are not going to use this now as an excuse not to consider building one.

Why should it matter to us what Johnston County is doing? We are more concerned with the issues that effect Chatham County, not Johnston.

I'm glad you're so happy to build schools instead of jails. Maybe if there was more enforcement of immigration laws we wouldn't have to build those schools either. But we don't really know because you never even considered the issue.

While we need a new jail, everyone understands that these are tough times and priorities need to be set. No one was screaming for a new jail so that reasoning for the resolution is meaningless.

How many children are we caring for now that are illegal immigrants or children of illegal immigrants? Any illegal immigrant can be deported at any time, they know this yet still chose to enter this country anyway. They are the ones putting their children at risk. How many children are in foster care because their parents are in prison? Should we ignore the laws they broke so we don't have to pay to take of their children?
No one was actively pushing for the 287(g) program in this county. There was no need to pass a Resolution to not participate. The overwhelming majority of counties and municipalities in the state had the good sense to leave the issue alone.

Quote: It is ineffective in crime prevention. Sheriff Webster and Chief Tyson do not recommend that we participate in ICE because it is not effective. Sheriff Webster and Chief Tyson join with many other law enforcement officials across the nation in believing that 287(g) undermines the trust that law enforcement agencies have worked so hard to establish with the immigrant community. The National Major Cities Chiefs Association has opposed 287(g) participation for these and other reasons.

This is debatable. For every study that questions the effectiveness of 287(g) there is one that supports it. The results are dependent on who wrote the report. I have yet to see any statement from the Major Cities Chiefs Assoc that specifically opposes the 287(g) program. Like almost all of your supporting evidence for the Resolution, their report says nothing about 287(g).

Of course the fact that 80% of the most dangerous Latino gang members are illegal aliens and the fact that we do have Latino gangs in the county means there is no reason to consider additional tools that might be helpful in removing these illegal aliens from our community.
Again, why pass a resolution that does nothing. The problems with 287(g) come from the unprofessional and illegal actions of local law enforcement agencies that misuse the 287(g) program. The overwhelming majority of your arguments against 287(g) were actually against large scale ICE enforcement actions that had nothing to do with 287(g). The only items that did relate to 287(g) were incomplete and illustrated nothing except possible misbehavior on the part of local law enforcement.

Now you say we have an outstanding Sheriff's Office. If that's the case why didn't you just support their decision to not participate in 287(g) and leave the issue alone. Instead you passed a resolution that does nothing but call into question their intregrity since the only way the abuses you claim occur under 287(g) can occur is if the local law enforcement officers behave in an unprofessional and illegal manner.

Quote: Our support is embodied in the adopted commissioners’ resolution, which states: “Be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners supports local law enforcement in the execution of their duties in the constitutions and laws of the United States, North Carolina, and Chatham County. Be it also resolved that, in continuing its belief of controlling its own destiny… while proudly preserving diverse cultural heritages, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners stands in strong opposition to any local governmental agency contracting with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.”

You oppose ANY local governmental agency contracting with ICE. This isn't just opposing 287(g) since ICE has other programs as well. You don't even specify law enforcement agencies.

Quote: There is considerable evidence that participation in the 287(g) program increases the risk of racial profiling. Please remember that racial profiling is, in fact, a crime. No person should live in fear because of his or her ethnic background. Based on 2008 statistics from participating North Carolina counties, the vast majority of people detained have been those arrested for non-violent and non-felony offenses, especially minor traffic violations (i.e. offenses other than DUIs and other serious traffic violations). This was confirmed by a North Carolina report released in February 2009 by UNC’s Immigration/Human Rights Policy Clinic and the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, which found that racial profiling is one of several major problems resulting from participation in the 287(g) program in North Carolina.

Yes, racial profiling is a crime so why are you so certain that our local law enforcement would start breaking the law that you felt the need to oppose them participating in a program they don't even qualify for?

I have yet to see full statistics that clearly demonstrate racial profiling. Most report statistics in broad categories that include a range of minor to serious offenses. Without a complete breakdown there is no way to know what those numbers truly represent.

The new UNC study does NOT offer clear evidence of how widespread the incidence of racial profiling is or that it is a guaranteed result of the 287(g) program. The report is a POLICY STUDY offering many suggestions to improve the program and not a thorough examination of the facts to determine the effectiveness or failure of the program. Considering 287(g) participation is based on an MOA negotiated by each participating agency it's really the integrity of the agency that is in question, not the overall program.

It is not the non-participation in 287(g) that may make Chatham County a "Sanctuary" county. It is the public announcement via this Resolution that we will do nothing except what we absolutely have to in regards to immigration enforcement while the counties around us are increasing enforcement that may persuade some illegal aliens to settle here. While the majority of illegal aliens come looking for work, the serious criminal element will be looking for the safest place that's still convenient to their markets. Where we sit between the Triangle, the Triad and Charlotte makes us a very tempting location.Why would the commissioners want to pass a resolution stating they distrust their local law enforcements ability to fairly do their duty?
Then don't participate in the program if you don't like it. If you feel so strongly that it's a federal issue, why didn't you just leave it alone like the overwhelming majority of municipal leaders did and not insert Chatham County into a national debate on immigration law?
Participation with 287(g) is a law enforcement issue and should be left up to local law enforcement. Passing a Resolution on behalf of the RESIDENTS of Chatham County involves those residents.
The HRC pushed to get an Office of Human Relations established in this county and a Director of Human Relations hired. They finally succeeded last year. Despite evidence from other counties that had Human Relations departments that suggested a half time position would be good to start with and what the county manager suggested, the Commissioners expanded it to a full time position. They created the department with a total budget of $85,000. At the same time they cut funding for one Sheriff's department position but left it up to the Sheriff to decide what position to cut.

Now most people would expect the brand new director in a brand new department whose job is to improve relations in the community would spend some time getting to know that community. According to the HRC minutes, our brand new director started out at their first meeting in January by handing out some information on an ICE program. It doesn't specifically say what program but I'll assume 287(g) since it's proposed at that meeting to research other county resolutions against the 287G program and then draft a resolution to present to the commission. There is no indication that there was any discussion of pros and cons of the program or consideration of whether or not such a program was being considered in the County.

In July they finally discussed talking to the Sheriff. According to the minutes the Sheriff did express some reservations about the Resolution.

In August there was a member of the public at their meeting that expressed interest in the resolution. Although he asks to see the resolution he is told it's not ready for the public. So much for public input when even supporters are not allowed to see the document. The Resolution is approved later that meeting and it's suggested to present it to the Commissioners at their second meeting in September and that as many HRC members and supporters as possible should be there. There is a minor technical correction made to the Resolution in September but no other publicly available mention of the Resolution until the Commissioners agenda for their January 5, 2009 meeting. A work meeting held on a Monday morning.

So while technically the HRC meetings are open to the public, they do not post agendas, their meetings are usually held in the afternoon, they are not well publicized unless someone follows all the various committee meetings held throughout the county on various issues. The two newsletters the Office of Human Relations published last year did not mention the Resolution at all. One would think that an issue that's so important to the county that it needs a year of study to produce a resolution would have rated some notice in the newsletter.

There are a great many legal immigrants and other diverse individuals in the county and I personally welcome and appreciate them. There are many types of diversity however, and I feel many people are less appreciative of the diversity of people who knowingly break our country's laws and disrespect the legal residents and citizen of the county. We have many programs to help those less fortunate in our community but there is a limit to what our budget can afford. Most people cannot afford to donate to every worthy cause that asks for money but have to decide which they can afford to support.

Passing a resolution that encourages support of people who knowingly break the law without considering all the implications of such an action is irresponsible.

My responses to your reasons are why I cannot support your Resolution and feel it was irresponsible and has needlessly harmed our community.