Oak Park mayor releases statement on ICE raids

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Timothy Inklebarger

Staff Reporter

Oak Park Mayor Anan Abu-Taleb released a statement on Saturday, June 22, noting that the Oak Park Police Department "will not cooperate with ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) or assist them in any way."

The letter comes in response to President Donald Trump's announcement that ICE plans to conduct immigration raids across the country in the coming weeks. 

"We are proud to be a welcoming city; we believe everyone should be treated equally and justly. We believe everyone should be treated with respect and dignity; we support the rights of all people including the rights of all immigrants and refugees," Abu-Taleb said in the letter.

The letter included an "ICE Workplace Enforcement Guide" by the American Business Immigration Coalition with a checklist of information for employees and employers. 

For employers, the checklist states:

  • ICE does not have the right to entry without a signed judicial warrant.
  • Do not hand over personal files immediately. You have the right to review them 72 hours beforehand.
  • Provide trainings for staff on what to do during a raid. Contact ABIC to set up your training.

For employees:

  • Remain silent and do not sign anything before speaking to a lawyer.
  • Stay calm and don't run out of the work place. You're not required to disclose your citizenship status or national origin.
  • Seek a trusted immigration attorney for legal counsel. 

The letter also recommends contacting the National Immigration Justice Center for legal needs.

 

Contact:
Email: tim@oakpark.com

Reader Comments

27 Comments - Add Your Comment

Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.

Comment Policy

Steven Marks from Oak Park  

Posted: July 1st, 2019 12:48 AM

For the record, everyone of those being targeted for deportation have already received AND IGNORED an existing deportation notice. They either have already committed a crime or were rejected for immigration/asylum. It is the equivalent of executing an arrest warrant, so those being targeted are more than simply violating civil law. Also, more than ironic that this blatant disregard for the rule of law and recognition of borders is from the Oak Park officials that require multiple forms of ID to ensure enrolling students actually live in the district.

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: June 28th, 2019 8:45 AM

@ BK AND BS: Nice exchange and challenge. If the OPPD does what they are trained to do and that involves breaking written policy should the officer be punished? Now, an ICE officer firing at an OPPD member could be caused by ICE knowing no one will assist them and mistakenly fires at shot at law enforcement. the FBI sniper who fired at Ruby Ridge and killed an by stander was never charged as a criminal. Just to measure the fiasco, the ATF, heavily armed, heavily armored and with that "plan" were treated to a rude surprise in Waco, (we aint comin out) and I always questioned why an arrest warrant was served by going up on a roof and breaking in a window? You think you would just kick in the front door. Looking for firearms in plain view maybe.Loss and sadness all around.Got to get my last dig in, The FBI were involved in someway with these incidents. FBI, Forever Bothering Italians.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 26th, 2019 10:53 PM

Well said, Bob. I love your approach using risk analysis principles.

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: June 26th, 2019 8:40 PM

@ Bob Stokes: Yes, however the quote, "will not cooperate with ICE, (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ) or assist them in any way" forbids the OPPD from getting involved. Heavily armed or armored does not guarantee survival.

Bob Stokes  

Posted: June 26th, 2019 5:05 PM

The "what if" game is better played as a risk analysis exercise. Vulnerability of an armed ICE agent, often working in teams, wrapped in body armor, linked by modern communications devices? = low; probability of an armed ICE agent being violently attacked in Oak Park? = very low; criticality of this event? (depending on the scale of the incident) = low to moderate. Although we tend not to make policy based on the possibility of a rare outcome taking place, we do try to account for rare events with contingency plans -- like, what should a OPPD officer do if confronted with a violent criminal who has injured an ICE agent? They should do what they are trained to do in this scenario: supply/coordinate emergency assistance to the victim while working towards neutralizing the offender. You know... provide public safety to their jurisdiction. The real "what if" conundrum is what should an OPPD officer do if an ICE officer fires at a fellow OPPD officer or a US citizen? Do they return fire and/or arrest the ICE officer? What if indeed...

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 26th, 2019 1:30 PM

Brian: You were an OP Police officer for 30 years. I've lived in this Village for 36 years. So I would suggest that your statement: "His statement must have and should have been reviewed by and staff agreed with the statement" is a debateable speculation. Maybe yes, maybe no. Marijuana is not volatile like ETOH, so testing for acute intoxication by non invasive means is extremely problematic. But I agree the Governor should have provided funds to further research in regard to marijuana biomarkers. Finally I also agree. citizens do seem to be on their own. Therefore act accordingly.

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: June 25th, 2019 11:28 PM

@ BK: The mayors statement is clear and concise. His statement must have and should have been reviewed by and staff agreed with the statement. Why ask him anything? The Fergueson Effect, . The Chicago Mayor opting for private security instead of the Chicago P.D., clearance rates dropping all show signs of a disconnect between the police and the people who need the services of the police. The governor signed recreational weed law and did not provide a penny for equipment to identify weed influenced drivers. The police will survive, some of the citizens wont. The citizens are on their own.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 25th, 2019 8:13 PM

Brian: I guess the best way to answer your question is to pose the hypothetical to our Mayor. "Mr. Mayor do you mean that our police are never to assist a federal agent ... even one injured in the line of duty?" And Chris, Mr. Trump is exercising his power vested in him by the Constitution: "...he (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." And whether you, or me, or even Mayor Anan, like it or not, being in the United States without appropriate documentation is against federal law. Doing so is a civil violation whose penalty is deportation. So I fail to see how upholding federal law (as is mandated by our Constitution) is unpardonable. On the contrary I think ignoring the law of the land is unpardonable and the fact that Congress allows this travesty to continue is equally unpardonable. Or have I missed the new immigration legislation presented to the President for his signature that he failed to sign?

Christine Vernon  

Posted: June 25th, 2019 5:14 PM

What this U.S. President is doing to the good citizens of this country is unpardonable.. He is creating stress and angst in innocent people everywhere, including children, and now adding undo pressure on law enforcement officers. This immigration problem wasn't solved in the Obama administration butTrump isn't solving it either. The people of this country want him and Congress to solve it and they want children and all immigrants to be treated respectfully. Instead, he creates a crisis and then be the hero that diffuses it -whether it is the alarmist threat of mass raids and the deportation of undocumented immigrants planned for this past weekend, or preparing for strikes against Iran and then calling them off ten minutes before the strikes were to take place. He seems to delight in the ying and the yang of dividing the country as much as he is able, and as often as he is able. It's as if he is planning his own Netflix movie with his saber rattling and his talk about superlative destruction with such pride. He thinks his bad theater out loud. He has threatened to use 'great and overwhelming force' against Iran. He has threatened 'obliteration', 'total destruction' and an 'end' to Iran. This kind of talk is irresponsible, especially given the previous Republican administration which led the country into an illegal war in Iraq where -"About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related causes between the US-led invasion...."(BBC) As I heard a doctor, an expert on public health, say recently, "There will be no winners in future wars." Why is it that we lowly citizens understand this and yet statesmen and leaders around the world preoccupied and obsessed with their furious hatred of one another don't have any healthy and proper insight into the fact that it is not only their enemies who would suffer? It's as if the President and other world leaders don't have children or grandchildren whose lives they love and value. Americans want peace.

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: June 25th, 2019 11:36 AM

@ BK: " will not cooperate with ICE ( U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) or assist them in any way." To me that is very clear. To place the decision to aid a fellow line law enforcement on the shoulder of another fellow line officer violating the direct order given by a superior is an act of valor that is not due to the citizen of Oak Park. The Oak Park line officer in this case must rise above and be larger than the upper management staff officer. The "what if" scenario fathered the entire division of Risk Management. You are correct, the "what if" scenario is a long shot. however to have a long shot someone must needlessly place themselves in the target area. You never place yourself needlessly in the target area. A St. Louis Blues fan placed a $420 bet the Blues to win the Stanley Cup at 240 to 1 odds and walked away with almost a quarter million dollars. The issue of the long shot is that the loss is needless, and preventable. The longshot is only taken when risk almost non existent. Thanks for and looking forward to your challenge.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 24th, 2019 8:16 PM

(continued): governments he raises the issue of what would happen if a state disagrees with a federal mandate. One remedy that Madison suggested: "? refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union" ? directly mirroring the anti-commandeering interpretation of the 10th ?" over 200 years before SCOTUS precedent! Of course I personally wonder does Oak Park qualify (as a state does) as a true sovereign? Is there an inherent conflict between the Supremacy clause and the 10th? And finally the relevance of the federal statute (8USC1373) preventing local officials such as our Mayor from mandating that the police (or any other official) NOT communicate with the Feds in regard to immigration status relevant? Of course 8USC 1373 just mandates that local officials can not prevent communication. It does not mandate local official to in fact do anything. It does not mandate that local officials assist in any way federal law enforcement. Of course we are going through these discomforting times because our Congress is too timid or incompetent to finally revise and legislate new immigration statutes that perhaps would address our current immigration dilemma. Hey, but why should our duly sworn representatives get off their ass ?" and risk the jobs they are paid to do ?" when they can stand by and watch in self righteous amusement - and "not get their hands dirty" - as events play out in the "sanctuary cities" as well as our southern border.

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 24th, 2019 8:12 PM

Ray I agree that many of these undocumented aliens are illegal in the sense they do not have a legal right to be here in the USA. But the vast majority seem to have committed a civil offense and not a criminal offense. And as you know the remedy for that is deportation. And I agree, that this country has every right to defend its borders ?" which apparently the Mayor and many others in Oak Park do not agree. That said we are still a nation of laws ?" I think (and hope). And as such according to our Constitution the states (and maybe the cities as well) are sovereigns and have "equal" status with the federal government. That is the structure of our government. That basically means that the federal government can not coerce or commandeer a states' apparatus to enforce federal mandates. The anti-commandeering interpretation of the 10th amendment has awakened this amendment from its previous hibernation. The first significant SCOTUS case affirming the anti-commandeering mandate of the 10th - of which I am aware - was in 1992 (NY v United States). Perhaps the most significant (and ironic) case reaffirming this constitutional principle was Prinz v United States whereby the Godfather of original intent ?" Justice Antonin Scalia ?" wrote for the majority that the federal government could not force states to use their police apparatus to enforce parts of the Brady Bill. The point being that while the state ?" and presumably Oak Park ?" can not negate federal law it is under NO obligation to assist the Feds in enforcing federal law. In other words, Congress cannot conscript state officers to carry out a federal regulatory program. As a matter of fact, this principle was alluded to by the "Father of the Constitution" ?" James Madison. In Federalist 46 where he discusses the balance of power between state and federal

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 24th, 2019 8:01 PM

Brian: The proscription is against assisting a federal agent in his or her mission - presumably arresting those who have committed the civil offense of being in this country with out appropriate documentation whereby the penalty is deportation. If that agent is injured because of a resulting physical confrontation - knife, gun, or fist - or during a pursuit, the picture changes from one of civil offense to a possible criminal offense - such as assault with a gun, or knife or fist. I would think that if our police observed such a scenario they would - by law - be obligated to intervene. So I really do not think your hypothetical is very plausible. At least I hope not. You also have to realize that the federal agent might have a signed judicial warrant, which I believe our police must then honor as well. Once again, I don't think your "what if" is very plausible.

Brian Slowiak  

Posted: June 24th, 2019 6:18 PM

I did thirty years as an Oak Park Police Officer. In the squad car we played the "What if" game. "What if this happened" "What would you do" Recently a Florida School Resource Officer was arrested for not entering a school where there was an active shooter incident. "What if"Say an ICE agent is being injured while doing his duty and The Oak Park Police refuse to assist the ICE Officer. Say the ICE Officer is at the end of his career and goes after The Village for failing to assit and protect the ICE Officer? Who pays, the tax payer. Deep pockets theory kicks in. attorneys fees, and suddenly the cost to settle is not worth the chance at the cost of a trial. Naturally, the injured ICE agent wants the deposition of the rank and file, "I was told not to assist the ICE agent for fear of losing my job.", says the rank and file OPPD officer. The OP rank and file officer sense they are off the hook work indirectly with the opposition. That pleasantly gives the problem directly over to upper village management who put into words their direction of the incident before the incident took place. The mayor has the right to remain silent, but does not have the ability. Say nothing do what you want later., This goes well until punitive damages against upper management gets discussed. "What if", "What if" A wonderful crushing game. Just think, the tax payer could have the most expensive front row seats for this theater drama.And the tax payer will be forced to sit thru the drama time and time again, kinda like the movie. Groundhogs Day. except no popcorn. "What if, what if", a good name for an urban horror movie.

Joel A. Schoenmeyer  

Posted: June 24th, 2019 3:05 PM

Who is this Allan fellow, and what has he done that's so illegal? #oldmanshakesfistatcloud

Ray Simpson  

Posted: June 24th, 2019 2:50 PM

Does the meaning"Illegal Allan" pass you by? Illegal is the key word and indicates these people have NO LEGAL right to be in our country and have ignored legal deportation orders. Those scheduled for deportation have had their day in court. They have had a chance to plead their case and they are all found to be not worthy of residence. the people targeted for removal contribute nothing to our society, but rather are a drain on the resources that are becoming increasingly scarce. All this hand wringing over thugs, gang members, drug dealers and criminals just prove how mindless we have become. Were you to be victimized by one of these animals I wonder if you would still show this pompous disregard for the "rule of l;aw" I guess you believe that your hatred for our president allows you to break the law. BTW I bet Oak Park does an insta-check before hiring any employee and do we want illegals with deportation orders working in our town?

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 11:55 PM

Ramona just to be clear. A "right to an attorney" means that if one can not afford an attorney the government is obligated under the 6th amendment of the US Constitution to provide one free of charge. Not having a constitutional right to an attorney only means the government is not obligated to provide one free of charge. The "offender" of course is still free to hire their own attorney or make use of volunteer attorneys if available. I think that is what your immigration attorneys were trying to say. And of course in such matters it is clearly better to have an attorney than not. Of course the right to silence still applies. And if an undocumented immigrant is accused of a crime (federal or state), then of course he or she has the constitutional right to an attorney.

Carollina Song from carollinasong@gmail.com  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 11:09 PM

Thank you, Mayor Anan for your compassion and leadership on this issue. The ACLU has a good explainer about our rights: https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/your-rights-border-zone

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 10:10 PM

Mean spirited plan is logistically impossible to implement. ICE does not have the sufficient number of agents to apprehend an estimated 1,000,000 targeted individuals or the jail space to house them. It would take decades to achieve the desired results of arresting and deporting that many people.

Ramona Lopez  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 8:37 PM

Thanks for the clarification Bruce. Did not know that. That's what I've been told by immigration attorneys. Appreciate the law lesson!!!

Mary Kay O'Grady  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 8:13 PM

What Bill Fletcher said.

Tom Coffman  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 8:09 PM

Down with Trump!!!

Bruce Kline  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 7:59 PM

Ramona since being in the US illegally is not a criminal offense in and of itself, but rather a civil offense, the offender does not have a constitutional right to counsel if detained by ICE. The Sixth Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Gideon for instance) make clear that the right to counsel applies to criminal - not civil - proceedings. So the irony is this. If illegal presence in the US was a criminal offense, all offenders (?thousands, ?millions) would be entitled to legal counsel. Since it is not a criminal offense, they are not so entitled to this bedrock of American jurisprudence ... at least as of now.

Ramona Lopez  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 6:58 PM

Being in the U.S. illegally is a civil and NOT a criminal offense. Anyone arrested by the police, regardless of their citizenship, still have the same rights as a citizen being arrested. You still have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. I would strongly suggest exercising both.

Johanna Brocker from River Forest IL 60305  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 5:49 PM

thank you. this is very clear.

Regina Alexandra  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 5:35 PM

Thank you for sharing this information. It is very important to provide to the public. Glad to see Oak Park take this position.

Bill Fletcher from Oak Park  

Posted: June 22nd, 2019 5:28 PM

100% behind the mayor on this one. Thanks for stepping up and supporting humanity!

Facebook Connect

Answer Book 2019

To view the full print edition of the Wednesday Journal 2019 Answer Book, please click here.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassified
MultimediaContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor
Place a Classified Ad

Classified Ad