Rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit last week against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for unlawfully detaining immigrants at the federal government’s request for days longer than they should have been held. Specifically, the lawsuit highlights the case of Duncan Roy, a British filmmaker and legal immigrant who spent 89 in jail after an erroneous immigration hold prevented Roy from posting bail.

The federal government can ask for an immigration hold to keep a person in police custody while immigration officials seek deportation, but the immigrant and civil rights groups behind the lawsuit say the practice needs to stop:

“This massive unconstitutional detention is a symptom of the criminalization of immigrants, a dangerous trend that must be reversed,” Jessica Karp, an attorney for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network that was one of the groups involved in the suit, said in a statement. [...]

Three Mexican immigrants and an Estonian who say they were unlawfully held were also party to the class action suit, filed on behalf of all current and future detainees held in a county jail for more than 48 hours solely for immigration holds.

Of the Los Angeles County jail population, around 14 percent – or roughly 2,100 people on any given day – are subject to Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds, according to the ACLU of Southern California, which was also involved in the lawsuit.

Those individuals are held in jail nearly three weeks longer than those without such holds, the group said.

In addition to unnecessary immigration holds, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has also refused to allow detainees to post bail, even when a court has set bail. After sending a demand letter before the lawsuit was filed, the ACLU says the department officials “recognized that individuals subject to ICE holds should be allowed to post bail, have sent bulletins to watch commanders clarifying this rule, and are working on revising policies and data systems to prevent unlawful detentions in the future.” So far, though, the sheriff’s department has not agreed to end detentions for people subject to ICE holds once they are eligible for release.

A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department said officers were following federal law, according to Reuters. In a statement, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman said federal officials’ partnership with local officers on immigration holds ensures that “potentially dangerous criminals are not released from prisons and jails into our communities.”

Through the Secure Communities program, local officials have worked with federal immigration officials to flag undocumented immigrants who are arrested. Some jurisdictions are trying to limit the scope of the joint program, and the California legislature passed the TRUST Act last session, which pushed back against Secure Communities by preventing local law enforcement officials from referring a detainee to ICE unless the person detained has been convicted of a violent or serious felony. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed the bill that he said was “fatally flawed” because it had too narrow of a list for the crimes.

Ever since President Obama announced a new deferred action policy in June, proving some undocumented immigration with a two-year deportation referral and permits, Mitt Romney has refused to say whether or not he would continue the program. Fellow Republicans and a campaign adviser have said Romney would undo the directive, though the GOP presidential candidate has repeatedly dodged the question.

But on the eve of his first debate with President Obama in Colorado, Romney said he would not take away temporary work permits from those who benefit from Obama’s deferred action plan, although it was unclear if he would continue to provide deportation deferrals:

Young illegal immigrants who receive temporary work permits to stay in the United States under an executive order issued by President Barack Obama would not be deported under a Mitt Romney administration, the GOP presidential hopeful told The Denver Post Monday.

“The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid. I’m not going to take something that they’ve purchased,” Romney said. “Before those visas have expired we will have the full immigration reform plan that I’ve proposed.”

Following the announcement about the directive, Romney criticized Obama for going around Congress to implement the policy a few months before the election.

During the Republican primary, Romney had said he would veto legislation that provides a path to citizenship. He opposes the DREAM Act, which would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy by 2030, but said he would support a version of the bill to give legal status to undocumented immigrants who served in the military. And Romney has supported harmful “self-deportation” policies to force undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S. instead of “going to round people up.” To fix the U.S.’s immigration system, Romney continues to repeat that he wants to work with Congress on a comprehensive solution, but he gave The Denver Post no details about that plan.

A U.S. citizen is suing the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security after the fingerprint-sharing program Secure Communities incorrectly identified him as an undocumented immigrant. When Chicago resident James Makowski pleaded guilty in December 2010 to a felony charge and sentenced to four months at a drug treatment facility, the controversial program flagged Makowski as an undocumented immigrant, and he spent two months in a maximum-security prison before immigration officials stopped his erroneous deportation order.

Makowski’s lawsuit — the first legal challenge to Secure Communities — “argues that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security violated the Privacy Act of 1974” because the government agencies share fingerprints from people who are suspected of immigration violations:

“The FBI and DHS are consistently and systematically violating the Privacy Act,” said Fleming, a lawyer for the National Immigrant Justice Center, a nonprofit advocacy group in Chicago. “The FBI should not be sharing this data if they have indications that this individual is a U.S. citizen.” [...]

Secure Communities was started by President George W. Bush in 2008, and the FBI has sent more than 16 million fingerprints to the immigration database since then. More than 900,000 were flagged as potential immigration violators, records show.

The other 15 million sets of fingerprints likely belonged to U.S. citizens, the lawsuit alleges, and their transmission violates the Privacy Act.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, only 26 of Illinois’ 102 police jurisdictions participate in Secure Communities, and some departments were concerned that sharing fingerprints with immigration officials would make witnesses less likely to cooperate with police. Some officials are limiting the scope of Secure Communities in their areas. The D.C. city council unanimously approved a bill to reduce the ability to enforce Secure Communities by limiting when D.C. law enforcement must hold individuals at the request of immigration officials, and Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) announced yesterday that he will propose a similar ordinance.

On Tuesday, the District of Columbia City Council unanimously approved a bill that will limit the circumstances under which local law enforcement is required to hold individuals at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The effort undermines the federal Secure Communities program, which requires local law enforcement to share fingerprints with federal immigration officials. If an individual’s fingerprints show up in a Department of Homeland Security Database, ICE can ask local law enforcement to detain the individual for 48 hours so it can take the person into custody.

The D.C. decision comes at a time when cities around the country are taking a stand against harsh immigration laws like those seen in Arizona. Since cities cannot opt out of participating in Secure Communities, they are using a strategy of restricting detainment circumstances to fight against it:

“We want to be the anti-Arizona,” Sarahi Uribe, a D.C.-based organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, told The Huffington Post. “Our entire campaign to get cities to break ties with federal immigration enforcement is an effort to be the opposite of Arizona.”

Opponents of Secure Communities, which is under ICE, say the program has the same effects as SB 1070′s most damaging provisions, by potentially scaring undocumented immigrants away from working with police.[...]

The newly-approved law restricts the period in which immigrants will be held from 48 to 24 hours, requires that ICE pay the local costs of incarceration and specifies that those held on detainers must have been convicted of serious crimes.

The city of Chicago is on its way towards joining D.C. and easing federal immigration enforcement within city limits. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) announced on Tuesday that he will also propose an ordinance that would restrict the circumstances in which local law enforcement can turn undocumented immigrants over to federal immigration authorities, noting that they would only be able to do so cases where the immigrants have serious criminal convictions or outstanding criminal warrants.

“If you have no criminal record, being part of a community is not a problem for you,” Mr. Emanuel said, speaking at a high school library in Little Village, a Latino neighborhood. “We want to welcome you to the city of Chicago.”

The mayor said the proposal was part of his goal to make Chicago the “most immigrant-friendly city in the country.”

D.C. and Chicago are not the only places where officials are fighting back against harsh immigration laws. Last week, California state senators approved the Trust Act, which is designed protect undocumented immigrants and push back against Secure Communities. The bill, awaiting action in the Assembly, would prevent local law enforcement officials from referring a detainee to ICE unless the person detained has been convicted of a violent or serious felony.

–Alex Brown

The Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities program is supposed to help prioritize the deportation of undocumented immigrants who commit serious crimes. It formed agreements with state and local police departments to check the fingerprints of every person booked at jails against an immigration database to identify who is undocumented. But the program failed to focus on serious criminals — most people identified through the program were charged with traffic-related offenses in some jurisdiction — and thousands of U.S. citizens have been detained through the program.

Following Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that invalidated three sections of Arizona’s immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded Secure Communities agreements with seven Arizona law enforcement agencies. They were the last agencies in Arizona with street-level task force agreements under the controversial program to check the immigration status of suspected undocumented immigrants. After the ruling let the “show me your papers” provision stand in SB 1070, a DHS official said the Obama administration determined that the agreements are “not useful” now in states that have Arizona-style laws.

Along with ending the partnerships, DHS officials said officials would not respond to calls from Arizona officials who want immigration agents to take undocumented immigrants into custody unless the suspects meet the criteria for enforcement priorities, such as convicted criminals or deportees who have returned to the U.S. While the task forces have been suspended, several Arizona departments still check immigration status in jails.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) accused President Obama of not thinking that Arizona is “part of the country anymore” if officials are pulling back on Secure Communities in the state. But a task force advising the president last year found that Secure Communities had a “negative impact” on public safety. It had “eroded the public trust” because even immigrants who had not committed serious crimes were being detained.

This morning, President Obama announced that the U.S. will stop deporting DREAM Act-eligible youth. The move protects one million undocumented students, providing them an opportunity to live and work legally in the country they call home. President Obama’s decision helps the economy by allowing currently undocumented students, who already boost the economy, to build careers in the United States.

Conservatives are enraged. Here’s a roundup of the ten worst conservative attacks (so far):

On the President’s decision to grant certain rights to illegals…This is yet another example of executive overreach! tinyurl.com/c9sz3x8

— Allen West (@AllenWest) June 15, 2012

This is a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership.

— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) June 15, 2012

Steve King: “Obama is planning to usurp the Constitutional authority of .. Congress and grant amnesty by edict to 1 million illegal aliens”

— Katrina Trinko (@KatrinaTrinko) June 15, 2012

Obama betrays young, black Americans, to pander to Illegal Aliens. Impeach, Indict, Convict.

— FloridaTEAParty (@TEAParty_FL) June 15, 2012

If a maneuver, amazingly bold / cynical

— davidfrum (@davidfrum) June 15, 2012

Rep Diane Black R-TN labels immigration move a “pro-amnesty power-grab” by President Obama

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) June 15, 2012

Sen. DeMint uses the A-word: “This is amnesty. It ignores the law and invites more people to come here illegally.”

— Rick Klein (@rickklein) June 15, 2012

Obama’s backdoor amnesty plan is nothing more than a blatant political ploy.dewhurstfortexas.com/latest-news/st… #txsen

— David Dewhurst (@DavidHDewhurst) June 15, 2012

Obama Admin to stop deporting young illegal aliens? And you wonder why American teens can’t find jobs #afire @NumbersUSA @RealSheriffJoe

— WND News (@worldnetdaily) June 15, 2012

The announcement by Napolitano that young illegals will not be deported is an impeachable offense committed by President @BarackObama

— Sam Thiessen (@SamThiessen) June 15, 2012

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has sponsored his own version of the DREAM Act, said this of President Obama’s decision: “Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”

–Ben Sherman

The House has just passed a watered-down version of the Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 222 to 205. The GOP-backed iteration of the bill strips out the provisions to protect undocumented, Native American, and LGBT victims that were included in the Senate version.

VAWA is usually a non-controversial, bipartisan effort, but this year has become a political talking point, with Republicans trying to slow its passage and providing fewer protections for victims. A misogynistic ‘men’s rights’ group has even voiced its support for the GOP’s version of the bill.

Meanwhile, a female Republican joined other women Senators in pressuring the House GOP to pass the Senate’s version.

The House also voted down, by a vote of 187 to 236, a request to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) introduced the motion, saying that the Republican’s bill violates the confidentiality a victim is entitled to by telling her abuser that she called the cops.

Now that the House has approved its version of the bill, it will go to conference to be negotiated by both the House and Senate. The President has issued a veto threat should the House version of the bill come to his desk.