Basing their assertion on the results of a Freedom of Information Act request which yielded thousands of internal documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), legal advocates from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Cardozo Immigrant Justice Clinic, delivered a letter to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, advising that he has the power to prevent statewide participation in the controversial “Secure Communities” program (S-Comm).

The 21 page letter points to Washington State and Washington D.C. as examples of areas that effectively opt-ed out of the program which mandates the sending of fingerprints of those in police custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. From the letter:

Washington State and the District of Columbia Have Effectively Opted Out of S-Comm and ICE has Provided No Reason Why Massachusetts Cannot Do the Same

In May 2010, after a series of communications with ICE, Washington State informed ICE that it would not sign an S-Comm Memorandum of Agreement. Rather, Washington informed ICE that it would leave the decision whether or not to participate in S-Comm to local jurisdictions. To our knowledge, Washington’s refusal to sign an MOA has meant that no localities in Washington have been “activated” in S-Comm without their consent. ICE’s own documents show that, to date, no jurisdictions in Washington are participating in S-Comm.

Similarly, in July 2010, following a unanimous vote by the DC Council opposing S-Comm, the District of Columbia informed ICE that it would not participate in the program.3 As with Washington State, the District’s opt-out has, according to our knowledge and ICE’s own representations, The District has not been activated in S-Comm, and it maintains a firm separation between local police and federal immigration functions.

If Massachusetts declines to sign an S-Comm MOA, there is no reason to believe that its decisionwould be any less effective than those of Washington State or the District of Columbia in preventing additional localities within Massachusetts from being activated in S-Comm absent an independent agreement between the locality and ICE. If ICE claims otherwise, the burden is on it to explain the justification for applying one standard to Washington State and the District of Columbia, and another standard to Massachusetts.