Video: "The roots of our past; a journey to our future"
During the Spring of 2018, three students from University of Iowa; Lina Khodor, Hibbah Jarmakani and Kim JoonHyuk drove around the state on a small budget, to collect immigration stories from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of Iowans. Iowa JFON would like to give special thanks to Professor Amy Weismann and to all who participated by sharing their immigration stories from the following countries: Lithuania, India, Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, Syria, Korea, Canada and Democratic Republic of Congo. This is the short version and the video is call: "The roots of our past; a journey to our future" .
Click here to access this report: Overview of Deportation System by Immigration Resources Center
Top 10 of 2018 Immigration Issues
Public Charge Proposal is Published. Submit a comment TODAY
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the public charge proposal
(legal description ) in the Federal Register, with the opportunity for the public to submit comments by December 10, 2018.
For over a century, the government has recognized that assistance programs for nutrition, health care, and housing empower families. A few decades ago, the government clarified that immigrants and their families can seek these benefits without fear that it will harm their immigration cases. If the public charge proposal is finalized, this assistance can no longer be available.
Iowa Justice For Our Neighbors encourages you to submit a comment in opposition of this proposal.
Your comment impacts the government’s decision making and shows how many people care about our immigrant neighbors.
Check out our website for sample comments and resources.
DACA UPDATE FROM - AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Practice Alert 5-25-2018:
Filing DACA Applications in the Wake of Federal Court Rulings
UPDATE FROM MAY 8, 2018
On May 1, 2018, seven states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit in a Texas district court challenging
the DACA program and requesting a nationwide injunction that would block any DACA grants
or renewals moving forward. The case is assigned to Judge Andrew Hanen, who issued the
February 16, 2015 injunction blocking the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of
DACA. On May 8, 2017, several DACA recipients – represented by MALDEF – filed a motion
to intervene as defendants in the lawsuit, which was granted by the court.
There are NO new changes to the DACA program at this time. It is still being implemented
on the terms of the prior court rulings discussed below, and we will update this practice
alert when there is more information. However, this case opens the possibility of having
competing nationwide injunctions: if Judge Hanen were to grant the injunction requested by the
plaintiff states, it would contradict the injunctions discussed below that direct the government to
temporarily maintain the DACA program. It is unclear what would happen if there were to be
competing nationwide injunctions, but it may be more likely that the issue would reach the
Supreme Court quickly (though the exact timeline is unclear and would depend on several
Applicants who want to renew their DACA, and who should renew given the circumstances
in their case, should submit their renewal applications to USCIS as soon as possible. The
case scheduling for this lawsuit is still being determined by the court, but there is a possibility
that it will move forward very quickly. The first hearing was initially set for July by the court,
but the Plaintiffs requested an accelerated schedule.
UPDATE FROM APRIL 24, 2018
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that DHS’s decision
to rescind DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” and vacated the termination of the program.
The court held that its decision meant that DHS must accept and process new DACA
applications, as well as renewal DACA applications – however, it stayed its order for 90
days to give the government a chance to respond.
The decision of the court differed from previous court rulings because it would affect new
applications – i.e. initial applications from individuals who have never applied for DACA
AILA Doc. No 18011035. (Posted 5/25/18)
previously but who are eligible to apply. However, the court’s decision is on hold for 90 days. In
the interim, the government has the chance to better explain its decision to rescind the program.
That means that the court may reconsider its decision before the 90 days is over, and before its
decision to allow new applications would go into effect.
As a result of the decision being on hold for 90 days, there are NO new changes to the
program as of now. It is still being implemented on the terms of the prior court rulings
discussed below. We will update this practice alert when there is more information.
UPDATE FROM MARCH 5, 2018
On March 5, 2018, a Maryland district court declined to halt the government’s rescission of the
DACA program. However, this decision does not affect the other preliminary injunctions
currently in effect, which means that USCIS will continue to process renewal applications under
the guidelines specified below while those cases go through the regular appellate review process.
The Maryland court did, however, enjoin the government from using information provided
through the DACA program for enforcement purposes, stating “[i]n the event that the
Government needs to make use of an individual Dreamer’s information for national security or
some purpose implicating public safety or public interest, the Government may petition the Court
for permission to do so on a case-by-case basis with in camera review.”
UPDATE FROM FEBRUARY 26, 2018
On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in DHS v. Regents of the University
of California, noting that it “assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to
decide this case.” This decision means that, for the time being, USCIS will continue to process
renewal applications under the guidelines specified below while the litigation works through the
regular appellate review process.
UPDATE FROM FEBRUARY 13, 2018
On February 13, 2018, a New York district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction
ordering the government to maintain the DACA program on the same terms and conditions that
existed prior to the September 5, 2017, rescission memo, subject to the same limitations as the
January 9, 2018, injunction issued in DHS v. Regents of the University of California. Check
AILA’s webpages on Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and New York v. Trump for updates.
UPDATE FROM JANUARY 26, 2018
On January 13, 2018, USCIS updated its website to include guidance on submitting DACA
renewal applications in light of the January 9, 2018 district court decision. The guidance includes
the following information:
AILA Doc. No 18011035. (Posted 5/25/18)
• Clients Who Have Never Had DACA: USCIS will not accept DACA requests from
individuals who have not previously been granted DACA. The court decision states that
applications from people who have never applied for DACA “need not be processed.”
• Clients Who Currently Have DACA: Clients who currently have DACA and are
eligible to renew may request renewal by filing Form I-821D, Form I-765, and Form I-
765 Worksheet, with the appropriate fee or approved fee exemption request, at the
USCIS designated filing location, and in accordance with the form instructions.
• Clients Whose DACA Expired On or After September 5, 2016: Under the policies in
effect before the rescission of DACA, applicants whose DACA had expired within the
past year were eligible to apply for renewal. USCIS’s guidance states that recipients
whose previous DACA expired on or after Sept. 5, 2016, may still file a renewal request.
USCIS asks applicants to list the date their prior DACA ended in the appropriate box on
Part 1 of the Form I-821D.
• Clients Whose DACA Expired Before September 5, 2016: Under the policies in effect
before the rescission of DACA, applicants whose DACA had expired more than a year
prior to reapplying had to submit initial DACA request applications. USCIS’s guidance
states that recipients whose previous DACA expired before September 5, 2016 cannot
request DACA as a renewal, but may file a new initial DACA request in accordance with
the Form I-821D and Form I-765 instructions. These applicants are instructed to list the
date their prior DACA expired on Part 1 of the Form I-821D, if available.
• Clients Whose DACA Was Terminated: DACA recipients whose previous DACA was
terminated at any point cannot request DACA as a renewal, but may file a new initial
DACA request in accordance with the Form I-821D and Form I-765 instructions. These
applicants are instructed to list the date their prior DACA was terminated on Part 1 of the
Form I-821D, if available.
• Advance Parole: USCIS will not accept or approve advance parole requests from DACA
recipients. The court decision had stated that applications for advance parole based on
DACA do not have to be processed for the time being.
When Should Clients Submit Their DACA Renewal Applications?
Because the defendants have already appealed the district court’s decision to both the Ninth
Circuit and the Supreme Court, and given the processing times for DACA applications,
practitioners should consider submitting renewal applications for eligible clients as soon as
USCIS has encouraged applicants to apply 150 to 120 days in advance of the expiration of their
prior DACA grants. AILA reached out to USCIS for clarification on how it will handle
applications that are filed more than 150 days in advance of the expiration date of the underlying
DACA grant, and was told that USCIS would accept DACA renewal requests in accordance with
the DACA policies in place before DACA was rescinded on September 5, 2017.
AILA Doc. No 18011035. (Posted 5/25/18)
Under the instructions for Form I-821D and the DACA FAQs on USCIS’s website, DACA
applicants were instructed to file for renewal 150 to 120 days in advance of the expiration of
their current DACA grant. The form instructions stated that USCIS “may” reject a renewal
application that is filed more than 150 days in advance of the expiration. However, the DACA
FAQs noted that requests received more than 150 days in advance of expiration would be
accepted, but could result in overlap between the applicants’ current DACA and their renewal
DACA. See Questions 49 and 50 of the DACA FAQs.
AILA is not aware of widespread rejection of early-filed DACA renewals prior to the rescission
of the DACA program, so USCIS lockboxes may continue to accept early-filed DACA renewals.
However, USCIS may not prioritize adjudication of these early-filed applications, given that they
are not as time-sensitive as timely-filed DACA renewals. If you file a DACA renewal
application for a client more than 150 days in advance of the DACA expiration and it is rejected
for being filed too early, please email firstname.lastname@example.org, with the subject line “rejected early-filed
Practitioners and their clients may want to consider several factors when deciding whether to
submit a DACA renewal application more than 150 days in advance, including how early they
would be applying to renew, the availability of renewal fees, and whether anything has changed
since the last time they applied for DACA. It may be good to consider the possible outcomes of
filing an early DACA renewal application under the court decision, as well, including (but not
limited to): that the renewal could be rejected and take several weeks to be returned; that the
application could be accepted but not prioritized for adjudication; that there could be an adverse
court decision after the application is submitted but before it is approved and the filing fee is lost;
that there could be a court decision that grandfathers cases already filed under the district court
decision; or that the case could be accepted and approved before the court makes a decision.
JANUARY 10, 2018
On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program. For more information on the rescission of DACA, see AILA’s
Practice Alert: Trump Administration Rescinds DACA. On September 8, 2017, the University of
California filed a complaint challenging the rescission of the DACA program and asking the
court to enjoin the implementation of the rescission. On January 9, 2018, the district court issued
an order directing the government to partially maintain the DACA program. This practice alert
summarizes the provisional relief provided by the court.
Scope of Provisional Relief
The court’s decision orders DHS to maintain the DACA program on a nationwide basis, under
the same terms and conditions that were in effect before the program was rescinded, with the
AILA Doc. No 18011035. (Posted 5/25/18)
• New Applications: The court stated that applications from people who have never applied
for DACA “need not be processed.” However, the court also noted that the decision does
not prevent DHS from adjudicating new DACA applications.
• Advance Parole: The court stated that applications for advance parole based on DACA
do not have to be continued for the time being. However, the court also noted that the
decision does not prevent DHS from adjudicating advance parole applications based on
• Discretion: The court stated that the government can take steps to ensure that discretion
is exercised fairly and on an individualized basis for each renewal application.
Importantly, the court also stated that the decision does not prohibit DHS from taking
enforcement action against anyone, including those with DACA, who it determines may pose a
risk to national security or public safety or who – in the judgement of DHS – “deserves ... to be
Filing Renewal Applications
The court’s decision directs DHS to post “reasonable public notice that it will resume receiving
DACA renewal applications” and to specify the process by which it will accept renewal
applications. As of January 10, 2018, USCIS had not yet released any public guidance on the
court’s decision, although it has noted on at least two different USCIS webpages that “more
information is forthcoming.”
Practitioners may want to consider waiting to file renewal DACA applications on behalf of their
clients until USCIS has released public guidance on the process. Given that 1) the court directed
USCIS to specify and publicize its renewal process, and 2) the fact that the USCIS lockboxes
and service centers will be relying on guidance from USCIS Headquarters to process
applications it receives, submitting a renewal application before guidance is released may cause
confusion and ultimately lead to a delay in processing.
AILA has reached out to USCIS and will provide updates as soon as they are available.
Effect on Legislative Efforts to Protect Dreams
While the decision is good news in the short term, Dreamers need Congress to pass a permanent
legislative solution now more than ever. It seems clear that this Administration will appeal the
court’s decision quickly, and the litigation itself is likely to be lengthy and drawn out. Moreover,
the decision only relates to renewal applications, leaving Dreamers who were unable to apply for
DACA without recourse. For more information on the need to pass the Dream Act now, see
WE HAVE RIGHTS
What to Do When Interacting with ICE
We Have Rights is a national immigrant empowerment campaign that will provide critical information to communities threatened by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and engage the broader American public in an urgent conversation about immigrant justice in our country.
In direct response to expressed community need, ACLU has joined forces with Brooklyn Defender Services to create and distribute a series of powerful and informative videos based on true stories to provide real life action points for what to do when ICE is outside our doors, is in our homes, stops us in our communities, and/or arrests us.
The videos are voiced in multiple languages by an all-star cast of influencers and activists, including: Jesse Williams (English), Diane Guerrero (Spanish), Kumail Nanjiani (Urdu), Linda Sarsour (Arabic), Edwidge Danticat (Haitian Creole), Katya Lee (Russian), and Xiren Wang (Mandarin).
We Have Rights: When ICE is Outside our Doors
ICE agents may come to your home looking for you or a loved one. They will try a number of tricks to get you to open the door. This video will help you understand what your rights are if ICE agents come to your home and what you can to try to prevent them from entering.
We Have Rights: Inside Our Homes
If ICE agents enter your home, you still have rights! This video outlines important information about what to do when ICE agents are inside your home, what your rights are, and what you can do to prepare for future immigration proceedings, should they occur.
We Have Rights: In Our Communities, In Our Streets
Increasingly, ICE agents approach and detain people in the community: in the street, in your car, at work, even in court. This video outlines what your rights are if ICE approaches you in your community, what to do in such a situation, and how it is your right to record such interactions if you see them happening to someone else.
Catholic Charities - Archdioceses of Dubuque, IA
New Law Senate File 481 and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
The Governor of Iowa recently signed a new law, Senate File 481, which will take effect July 1, 2018. This law requires
state law enforcement agencies to cooperate with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This FAQ
was prepared by Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services program to explain the new law and its possible
consequences. It serves as a reminder that all people, regardless of immigration status, have certain constitutional rights.
This document is intended as legal information only and should not be used as legal advice. If you have questions about
how this new law will affect you or your family, we urge you to consult with an immigration attorney.
At Catholic Charities, we strive to live out the scriptural commandment to “welcome the stranger” and defend the God-
given dignity of every person. Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services offers free immigration legal consultations
within the Archdiocese of Dubuque. Consultations are available by appointment only. To schedule an appointment, please
What does SF 481 allow?
Senate File 481 instructs local law enforcement to comply with “any instruction made in an ICE detainer request.” In
addition, SF 481 forbids law enforcement agencies from having blanket policies in place that stop officers from asking a
person about their immigration status, talking to Immigration or other law enforcement about a person’s immigration
status, cooperating with ICE, or “enforcing immigration laws.” Under the US Constitution, ICE detainers are merely
requests that local law enforcement hold a person for an additional 48 hours. In the past, it has been up to each local law
enforcement agency to decide whether or not to honor the request, according to each department’s resources and policies.
What does SF 481 NOT allow?
SF 481 does not allow the police to stop or question people for the sole purpose of enforcing immigration laws.
SF 481 does not allow the police to arrest you just because you do not have any lawful immigration status.
SF 481 does not require individuals to provide proof of status or otherwise discuss their immigration case with the
SF 481 does not allow any government official to enter your home without permission, unless they have a warrant
signed by a judge.
What is an ICE detainer?
An ICE “detainer” is a request from ICE to local law enforcement, such as the sheriff or police, asking that local law
enforcement keep a person in custody for an additional 48 business hours—if a person is detained over the weekend or
holiday, they could be held for four or five days. While the detainer is in place, ICE may take custody of the individual
and place them in immigration detention.
The decision to issue a “detainer” is up to ICE, not local law enforcement. ICE should only issue a detainer where they
have “probable cause” (that is to say, a good reason) to believe that the arrestee is deportable/removable. Police should not
detain you unless they have a good reason to think you have broken the law.
April 20, 2018
When does ICE decide to issue a detainer?
When a person is arrested and fingerprinted at a police station, ICE automatically receives that person’s fingerprints under
a federal program called “Secure Communities.” If an individual's fingerprints match those of a non U.S. citizen
(including legal permanent residents), ICE may decide to issue a detainer. ICE may also decide to issue a detainer if the
person has an ongoing immigration court case, or if the person has an existing order of removal. Sometimes, local law
enforcement will decide to contact ICE on its own to ask whether a foreign-born person has any immigration status.
If I am a victim of or witness of a crime, does SF 481 allow the police to ask about my immigration
No, SF 481 forbids the police from asking about the immigration status of someone who is a victim or witness of a crime.
If you have been a victim or witness to a crime, reporting the crime to the police may help your immigration case. If you
have been the victim or witness of a crime and are thinking about reporting a crime to the police, but have questions about
possible consequences, you should consult with an immigration attorney.
Does SF 481 allow the police to discriminate based on race, skin color, language or national origin?
SF 481 forbids the police from discriminating against people on the basis of race, skin color, language or national origin,
consistent with both the US Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. It is not clear how this doctrine applies in the context
of immigration law and we may not know until this issue is resolved in the courts.
Does SF 481 mean that the police are going to ask me about my immigration status? Do I have to tell
them about my immigration status?
SF 481 does not require law enforcement officers to ask about your immigration status. Rather, it forbids blanket
department policies that say officers are never allowed to ask about immigration status or cooperate with ICE. An officer
may decide in each case whether to ask about immigration status or not. Some officers may decide, on a case-by-case
basis, whether or not to ask about immigration status.
If you are unsure what to say when approached by police or immigration, it is important that you know how to exercise
your constitutional rights. Under the US Constitution, all people have the right to remain silent. If you do not wish to
discuss your immigration status with police or immigration officials, you should say “I want to remain silent.” If you
want to speak with a lawyer before answering questions, you should tell the officer, “I want to speak with a lawyer.”
If I am stopped by police, is the police going to call ICE?
SF 481 does not require law enforcement officers to inform ICE about an individual, or about that individual’s
immigration status. Rather, it forbids blanket department policies that say officers are never allowed to share immigration
status or cooperate with ICE. Again, officers may decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not they may contact ICE
regarding a particular individual.
However, if you are arrested and police take your fingerprints, these fingerprints will be shared with ICE as part of a
mandatory program called “Secure Communities.”
Is SF 481 effective immediately? When does SF 481 take effect?
SF 481 is not effective immediately. The law will take effect on July 1, 2018, unless there is a court order (injunction)
Nueva Ley del Senado Archivo 481 y Preguntas Frecuentes (FAQs)
El Gobernador de Iowa recientemente firmó una nueva ley, el Archivo Senatorial 481, que entrará en vigencia el 1 de
julio de 2018. Esta ley requiere que las agencias estatales encargadas de hacer cumplir la ley cooperen con el Servicio de
Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) de los Estados Unidos. Estas preguntas frecuentes fueron preparadas por el
programa de Servicios Legales de Inmigración de Caridades Catolicas para explicar la nueva ley y sus posibles
consecuencias. Sirve como un recordatorio de que todas las personas, independientemente de su estatus migratorio, tienen
ciertos derechos constitucionales. Este documento está destinado solo como información legal y no debe utilizarse como
asesoramiento legal. Si tiene preguntas sobre cómo esta nueva ley lo afectará a usted o a su familia, lo instamos a
consultar con un abogado de inmigración.
En Caridades Catolicas, nos esforzamos por cumplir el mandamiento de las Escrituras de "dar la bienvenida al extraño" y
defender la dignidad dada por Dios de cada persona. Servicios Legales de Inmigración de Caridades Catolicas ofrece
consultas legales de inmigración gratuitas dentro de la Arquidiócesis de Dubuque. Las consultas están disponibles solo
con cita previa. Para programar una cita, llame al 319-364-7121.
¿Qué permite SF 481?
El Archivo Senatorial 481 instruye a las autoridades locales a cumplir con "cualquier instrucción hecha en una solicitud de
detencion de ICE". Además, SF 481 prohíbe a las agencias polciacas a tener polízas generales que: impidan que los
oficiales pregunten sobre el estado migratorio de una persona, hablen con Inmigración u otra agencia policiaca sobre el
estado migratorio de una persona, cooperaran con ICE, o "hacer cumplir las leyes de inmigración". Según la Constitución
de los EE. UU., las detenciones de ICE son simplemente solicitudes que las autoridades locales detengan a una persona
por 48 horas adicionales. En el pasado, ha dependido de cada agencia local a decidir si se cumple o no con la solicitud, de
acuerdo con los recursos y las polizas de cada departamento.
¿Qué NO permite SF 481?
• SF 481 no permite a la policía detener o interrogar a personas con el único propósito de hacer cumplir las leyes de
• SF 481 no le permite a la policía arrestarlo solo porque usted no tiene ningún estado legal de inmigración.
• SF 481 no requiere que las personas proporcionen prueba de estado o de otra manera discutan su caso de inmigración
con la policía.
• SF 481 no permite que ningún funcionario del gobierno ingrese a su hogar sin permiso, a menos que tengan una orden
firmada por un juez.
¿Qué es una detencion de ICE?
Una "detención" de ICE es una solicitud de ICE a la policía local, como el alguacil o la policía, solicitando que las
autoridades locales mantengan a una persona bajo custodia por 48 horas hábiles adicionales, si una persona es detenida
durante el fin de semana o vacaciones, podrían mantenerse durante cuatro o cinco días. Mientras se lleva a cabo la
detención, ICE puede tomar la custodia de la persona y colocarla en detención de inmigración.
La decisión de emitir una "orden de detención" depende de ICE, no de las autoridades locales. ICE solo debe emitir una
orden de detención donde tengan "causa probable" (es decir, una buena razón) para creer que el arrestado es deportable /
extraíble. La policía no debería detenerlo a menos que tenga una buena razón para pensar que ha violado la ley.
April 20, 2018
¿Cuándo decide ICE emitir una orden de detención?
Cuando una persona es arrestada y toma sus huellas dactilares en una estación de policía, ICE automáticamente recibe las
huellas dactilares de esa persona bajo un programa federal llamado "Comunidades seguras". Si las huellas dactilares de un
individuo coinciden con las de un ciudadano no estadounidense (incluyendo residentes legales permanentes), ICE puede
decidir emitir una orden de detención ICE también puede decidir emitir una orden de detención si la persona tiene un caso
en curso en la corte de inmigración, o si la persona tiene una orden de expulsión existente. A veces, las autoridades locales
decidirán ponerse en contacto con ICE por su cuenta para preguntar si una persona nacida en el extranjero tiene algún
Si soy víctima o testigo de un delito, ¿permite el SF 481 que la policía pregunte sobre mi estado
No, SF 481 prohíbe a la policía preguntar sobre el estado migratorio de una persona que es víctima o testigo de un delito.
Si ha sido víctima o testigo de un crimen, denunciar el delito a la policía puede ayudarlo en su caso de inmigración. Si ha
sido víctima o testigo de un delito y está pensando en denunciar un delito a la policía, pero tiene dudas sobre las posibles
consecuencias, debe consultar con un abogado de inmigración.
¿El SF 481 permite a la policía discriminar por raza, color de piel, idioma u origen nacional?
SF 481 prohíbe a la policía discriminar a las personas por motivos de raza, color de piel, idioma u origen nacional, en
consonancia con la Constitución de los EE. UU. Y la Constitución de Iowa. No está claro cómo se aplica esta doctrina en
el contexto de la ley de inmigración y es posible que no lo sepamos hasta que este tema se resuelva en los tribunales.
¿SF 481 significa que la policía me va a preguntar sobre mi estado migratorio? ¿Debo informarles sobre
mi estado migratorio?
SF 481 no requiere que los oficiales de la ley pregunten sobre su estado migratorio. Más bien, prohíbe las polízas
generales del departamento que dicen que a los oficiales nunca se les permite preguntar sobre el estado migratorio o
cooperar con ICE. Un oficial puede decidir en cada caso si preguntar sobre el estado migratorio o no. Algunos oficiales
pueden decidir, caso por caso, si preguntar o no sobre el estado migratorio.
Si no está seguro de qué decir cuando se le acerque la policía o la inmigración, es importante que sepa cómo ejercer sus
derechos constitucionales. Según la Constitución de los Estados Unidos, todas las personas tienen derecho a guardar
silencio. Si no desea hablar sobre su estado migratorio con la policía o los funcionarios de inmigración, debe decir
"Quiero permanecer en silencio". Si desea hablar con un abogado antes de responder preguntas, debe decirle al oficial:
"Quiero hablar con un abogado ".
Si la policía lo detiene, ¿la policía va a llamar a ICE?
SF 481 no requiere que los agentes de la ley informen a ICE sobre un individuo o sobre el estado migratorio de esa
persona. Más bien, prohíbe las polízas generales del departamento que dicen que a los oficiales nunca se les permite
compartir el estado de inmigración o cooperar con ICE. Nuevamente, los oficiales pueden decidir caso por caso si pueden
contactar a ICE con respecto a un individuo en particular.
Sin embargo, si lo arrestan y la policía toma sus huellas dactilares, estas huellas digitales se compartirán con ICE como
parte de un programa obligatorio llamado "Comunidades seguras".
¿SF 481 es efectivo inmediatamente? ¿Cuándo entra en vigencia el SF 481?
SF 481 no es efectivo inmediatamente. La ley entrará en vigencia el 1 de julio de 2018, a menos que exista una orden
judicial (medida cautelar) que la detenga.
"The roots of our past; a journey to our future"