LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California strongly opposes efforts to give Anaheim police officers the authority to arrest people suspected of violating federal immigration laws.

The proponents of this measure have deviously twisted the meaning of the 1996 federal welfare and immigration laws. Under those laws, state and local governments cannot enforce a law that prohibits the local police from reporting information on a person's immigration status to the INS. The federal law does not - and under our Constitutional system of government cannot - give local police the authority to act as INS agents enforcing INS laws.

Moreover, this mean-spirited, anti-immigrant measure would wreak immeasurable harm on Anaheim residents and visitors alike. Bluntly put, it will lead to racial profiling in a city that has a nearly 40% Latino population - as well as a large number of Latinos who come to the city to work, cheer for their teams at sports events, and enjoy the rides at Disneyland. And make no mistake: improper arrests can lead to expensive legal liability. Wrongful detention and arrests by local police in cooperation with the INS have recently resulted in several successful damages suits against municipalities.

In addition, there is clear evidence that when local law enforcement attempts to enforce federal immigration laws, the police have an even tougher time investigating and curbing crime. We know that immigrants are disproportionately the target of crime. Victims and witnesses concerned that they will be questioned about their immigration status - or arrested and turned over to INS officials by the police - will refuse to come forward. Immigrants will become easy prey for criminals who know the victims will not report offenses to the police for fear of being deported.

The result is inevitable: crime will go unreported and unsolved. And criminals will be free to strike again and again in vulnerable communities. We urge the Council to leave enforcement of the federal immigration laws where it properly, and legally, belongs - with federal immigration authorities.

LOS ANGELES - In response to two Councilmembers' proposal to undo the LAPD consent decree, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California will appeal to the City Council to swiftly reject the proposal and, in addition, will appeal to all mayoral candidates to affirm their commitment to the decree, which has already been signed by the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Justice. The consent decree grew out of a pattern of police abuse and civil liberties and civil rights violations that came to light in connection with the Rampart scandal. The ACLU/SC was the first to call for federal intervention and recently insisted, along with noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky and groups such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, that local residents and groups needed a more direct role in monitoring enforcement of the decree. The ACLU filed suit last month to intervene on behalf of residents and community groups, alleging that full and vigorous enforcement of the decree would be endangered by President-elect Bush's open resistance to the U.S. Department of Justice's intervention in police-related civil rights cases, as well as the City's own history of backsliding from commitments it has made to reform the LAPD.

"Councilmembers Svorinich and Bernson propose to abort our first step toward real reform," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Residents of Los Angeles need to hear unequivocally that our City Council and our would-be mayors oppose this measure and fully support the reform of a police department that has resisted meaningful change and held itself above the law for decades. To waste this opportunity for meaningful change is an affront to all those whose lives have been unjustly taken away or whose rights have been deprived by the Los Angeles Police Department."

Ripston also objected to the discussion of the matter in closed session.

"It is deeply troubling," said Ripston, "that police reform, which is fundamental to the safety and freedom of every Los Angeles resident, will be addressed without public input. The residents of Los Angeles need to be involved in this process if it's going to work. But this consent decree was hammered out behind closed doors and will now be revisited behind closed doors, shutting the vital voice of the public out."

Ripston noted that the Council Members' proposal to abandon the consent decree strengthens the ACLU's doubts about its full enforcement - doubts laid out in its suit last month to intervene in the consent decree on behalf of Los Angeles community groups and residents.

"It's clear that Svorinich and Bernson are emboldened by the prospect of Bush's indifference, if not hostility, to meaningful enforcement of federal civil rights laws," said Ripston. "This is a perfect example of why community members and groups should be part of the consent decree."

SAN LUIS OBISPO - The ACLU of Southern California and the San Luis Obispo Chapter of the ACLU sent letters today to the County of San Luis Obispo and City of Atascadero challenging the legality and fairness of subsidizing the activities of the Boy Scouts of America by offering them "sweetheart deals" on rent of government lands, facilities and buildings.

"Our letters ask the county and the city of Atascadero to stop subsidizing discrimination by giving rent-free leases to the Boy Scouts," said Martha Matthews, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "As the Los Padres Council's recent firing of Leonard Lanzi shows, the Boy Scouts of America has abandoned the values it used to stand for -- honesty, fairness, and respect for diversity -- in favor of bias and exclusion."

"The County and the City should follow the lead of the City of San Luis Obispo, which stopped giving the Boy Scouts free use of a public building last year, after community protests," said Hank Alberts, president of the San Luis Obispo Chapter of the ACLU.

The national leadership of the Boy Scouts of America recently went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm their right to be a "private expressive association," with discriminatory membership policies that exclude gay persons and religious non-believers.

"It's unlawful for cities and counties to subsidize the Boy Scouts' activities through rent-free leases of valuable public property," said Matthews. "Such leases violate the California and federal constitutions' guarantees of equal protection and freedom of religion, and would also be vulnerable to a taxpayer suit for waste of public resources. Last fall, the ACLU sued the City of San Diego over a similar lease of public parkland to the Boy Scouts for $1 per year."

The ACLU argues that the government should not subsidize organizations that exclude some youth and families - those who are religious non-believers, gay or lesbian, and also those who do not want their children to participate in an organization that teaches religious intolerance and homophobia.

"The most effective way for the County and the City to sever their ties with the Boy Scouts would be to enact local non-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation," said Matthews. "Both leases have clauses saying that the Boy Scouts must comply with all local laws or the leases can be immediately terminated."