NJIPN Supports Training and Calls for Reevaluation of Attorney General’s Directive
November 26, 2007 - 4:53pm
By New Jersey Immigration Policy Network
NEWARK — On August 22, the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey issued Directive 2007-3. When the directive was released, it did not include any specific training requirements. The New Jersey Immigration Policy Network cautioned at that time that the directive could lead to racial profiling and other forms of police abuse. Specifically, the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network urged the Attorney General to conduct extensive training for all police departments. Furthermore, the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network has indicated, since release of the directive in August, that the directive was deficient, confusing, and problematic.
On September 6, 2007, a photographer for the Newark-based Brazilian Voice newspaper found a dead body in conjunction with an investigation that the newspaper was conducting regarding illegal dumping.
During the course of the photographer and editor of the newspaper reporting the crime, they were arrested. The basis of the arrest involved questioning regarding the immigration status of the photographer and the editor. The photographer and editor were in essence promoting public policy in reporting a crime. They were arrested in direct contradiction of the directive that provides that “[n]o State, county, or local law enforcement officer shall inquire about or investigate the immigration status of any victim, witness, potential witness, or person requesting or receiving police assistance.”
Today the Attorney General’s Office in a press release indicated that “the state plans to issue its own follow-up guidelines directing all police departments to implement training programs on the immigration directive.” The New Jersey Immigration Policy Network concurs with the Attorney General’s decision to provide training. The Network’s executive director, Charles “Shai“ Goldstein stated, “We have cautioned from the issuance of this directive, that the directive itself and failure to provide training was a potential path to racial profiling. We have and continue to contend that an entire reevaluation and restructuring of the directive is appropriate.” |
