FAIR is an anti-immigrant hate group with ties to white supremacists and eugenicists.

For Director Morton to state publicly that he thank[s] FAIR for its input on immigration policy and share[s its] concerns is shocking, and deeply discredits his judgment. [1]

Detainer discretion policies promote public safety.

When police act as a gateway to ICE, immigrant crime victims and witnesses are reluctant to report crime. That leaves perpetrators undetected, which harms everyone. By creating a clear line between criminal law enforcement and immigration law enforcement, detainer discretion policies restore trust between police and immigrant communities.

Director Mortons fearmongering is unfounded.

Our criminal justice system is designed to take public safety concerns into account when determining conditions of release. That system alone is the appropriate means of deciding who should be released, and when. An immigration detainer is not a tool to inde nitely detain an individual whom an o cer would rather keep in jail despite judges orders and constitutional imperatives. In our criminal justice system, there simply is no such tool--for good reason. The implication that individuals subject to immigration detainers present an elevated risk contradicts established facts. A WBEZ investigation found that those subject to ICE detainers were no more likely to commit new o enses or jump bail than other detainees. [2]

Director Mortons thinly veiled threat of litigation has no legs to stand on.
Morton cannot, and does not, suggest that the core of detainer discretion policies the limitation on detention pursuant to ICE holds is unlawful. As 31 highly respected law professors and law school deans recently explained in a letter to California Governor Jerry Brown, the federal government cannot constitutionally order states to use state resources to implement federal programs. [3] So ICE cannot require states to detain people to facilitate deportations. Director Morton does not contest that. Since he cant attack the core of the detainer discretion ordinances, Director Morton focuses in on a provision in Cook Countys ordinance that restricts communication with ICE. That provision has no counterpart in the TRUST Act. So even if Mortons criticism of the provision were well-founded, it would be completely irrelevant to the legality of the TRUST Act. But its not. The Cook County provision that Morton seizes on restricts communication with ICE about inmate release dates. Morton suggests that this con icts with a federal law that prevents localities from restricting communication with ICE about immigration status. There is a fundamental aw in this logic. It does not take 31 law professors to point out that a release date has nothing to do with immigration status. No federal court has yet weighed in on this issue, but if the time comes, Director Morton may have a hard time convincing a federal judge with his shaky logic.

No law or policy ties SCAAP funding to compliance with ICE detainer requests.
It is the Department of Justice that runs the SCAAP program, not ICE. Director Morton does not work for the DOJ, so his authority to speak about the administration of SCAAP is doubtful. SCAAP funding reimburses jurisdictions for only a portion of the cost of detaining certain individuals for ICE. SCAAP funding does not cover the full cost of compliance with immigration detainers. For example, in 2011, Los Angeles received approximately $9.8 million in SCAAP funding. The same year, Los Angeles spent approximately $26 million to detain individuals on immigration detainers. [ ]

Notes [1] See Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Files, Federation for American Immigration Reform, at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/federation-for-american-immigration-reform-fair [2] See Chip Mitchell, WBEZ, ICE detainers a public-safety issue? May 16, 2012, available at http://www.wbez.org/news/ice-detainers-public-safety-issue-99190 [3] See Legal Scholars Endorse California TRUST Act, at http://ndlon.org/en/resources/research-reports/item/543scholar-trust-act. [4] See FY 2011 SCAAP Awards, available at https://www.bja.gov/Funding/11SCAAPAwards.xls [5] Judith Greene, The Cost of Responding to Immigration Detainers in California, Justice Strategies (Aug. 2012), available at http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/cost-responding-immigration-detainers-california.