PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 287(g) PROGRAM IN CULPEPER COUNTY
We, the undersigned community members respectfully request that Sheriff Jenkins withdraw his request or agreement to participate in DHS’s 287(g) “program.” ( Nosotros, los miembros comunitarios abajo firmantes, respetuosamente solicitamos al Sheriff Jenkins que retire su solicitud o acuerdo de participar en el “programa” 287(g) del DHS)
g) Program in Culpeper County:
(Nos oponemos al programa 287(g) en el condado de Culpeper por las siguientes razones:)
1) ● The 287(g) will erode trust between the community and law enforcement, undermining community policing, and threatening community safety. (El 287(g) desgastará la confianza entre la comunidad y la policía, socavando el rollo de la comunidad en reforzar la ley, y amenazando la seguridad de la comunidad.)
2) ● The agreement will lead to an increase in racial profiling. (El acuerdo aumentará la práctica de acusar a base de la raza.)
3)● The agreement will not accomplish its stated purpose of detaining threats to national security but will be used to detain individuals for non-criminal offenses. (El acuerdo no cumplirá el dicho propósito de detener a personas quienes amenazan la seguridad nacional; se usará para detener a individuos por ofensas que no son criminales.)
4) ● The agreement will be costly for the county’s budget. (El acuerdo será costoso para el condado.)
5) ● The agreement will be costly for the county’s reputation, tourism, and economic development. (El acuerdo será costoso para la reputación, el Turismo, y el desenrollamiento económico del condado.)
___________ foot note ----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Local police agencies depend of the cooperation of immigrants . . . Without assurance that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families.” “Enforcing Immigration Law” Police Chief, 72, no. 4 (2005, 16-18, 20-21.
2. A study by UNC Chapel Hill found that “287g encourages, or at the very least tolerates, racial profiling and baseless stereotyping.” (Deborah Weissman, The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement laws, 2009, p. 46)
3. In Frederick, MD. over 90% of the 287g arrests leading to immigration detention and deportation were for misdemeanors, primarily minor traffic violations. https://www.fredericknewspost.com/terms/source/frederick_news_post/operation-of-g-program-leads-to-deep-concern-from-immigration/article_06b2820d-6a8e-549c-a665-0f53074ccd57.html
4. Prince William county is the only locality in the Commonwealth with a current 287g agreement. It’s 5 year budget for the program is $26 million. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0225_immigratin_singer.pdf (Feb 2009).
5 . A decrease in consumer spending in Alamance Co, NC was directly attributed to the county’s 287g program by over 50% of retailers: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/01/immigration-policing-enforcement-287g-durham-alamance-north-carolina/423723/
To:
Sheriff Scott H. Jenkins
From:
[Your Name]
Dear Sheriff Scptt H. Jenkins,
We, the undersigned community members, respectfully request that you withdraw your request or agreement to participate in DHS’s 287(g) “program.”
We oppose 287(g) Program in Culpeper County for the following reasons:
● The 287(g) will erode trust between the community and law enforcement, undermining community policing, and threatening community safety.
● The agreement will lead to an increase in racial profiling.
● The agreement will not accomplish its stated purpose of detaining threats to national security, but will be used to detain individuals for non-criminal offenses.
● The agreement will be costly for the county’s budget.
● The agreement will be costly for the county’s reputation, tourism, and economic development.
Sincerely
__________ foot notes ----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Local police agencies depend of the cooperation of immigrants . . . Without assurance that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families.” “Enforcing Immigration Law” Police Chief, 72, no. 4 (2005, 16-18, 20-21.
2. A study by UNC Chapel Hill found that “287g encourages, or at the very least tolerates, racial profiling and baseless stereotyping.” (Deborah Weissman, The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement laws, 2009, p. 46)
3. In Frederick, MD. over 90% of the 287g arrests leading to immigration detention and deportation were for misdemeanors, primarily minor traffic violations. https://www.fredericknewspost.com/terms/source/frederick_news_post/operation-of-g-program-leads-to-deep-concern-from-immigration/article_06b2820d-6a8e-549c-a665-0f53074ccd57.html
4. Prince William county is the only locality in the Commonwealth with a current 287g agreement. It’s 5 year budget for the program is $26 million. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0225_immigratin_singer.pdf (Feb 2009).
5 . A decrease in consumer spending in Alamance Co, NC was directly attributed to the county’s 287g program by over 50% of retailers: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/01/immigration-policing-enforcement-287g-durham-alamance-north-carolina/423723/
