Transcript 287(g) & Secured Communities

287(g) & Secured Communities
Effective Programs or
Discriminatory Practices
287(g)
Delegation of
Immigration Enforcement to
Local Law Enforcement Agencies
History of 287(g)

1996 – IIRIRA created the program
Not used because of fears that the local law enforcement
would discriminate against immigrants

2001 – Local law enforcement show interest in
participating in 287(g) programs
Currently 73 local law enforcement agencies have
programs, with 1,000 trained officers. 30 more agencies
are on a waiting list. Over 79,000 people have been
identified as undocumented.

2009 – Human rights organizations lobbied the
Obama administration to end the program
287(g)’s Goals


To increase ICE’s enforcement capabilities
To identify and remove dangerous
immigrants
Both goals are accomplished by using local
law enforcement to investigate, arrest, detain
and transport criminal immigrants.
3 Types of 287(g) Programs
1.
Correctional
31 of 67 agencies, additional 12 use a joint
correctional/task force program
2.
Highway Patrol
Only 3 agencies
3.
Task Force/Investigative
24 of 67 agencies, additional 12 use a joint
correctional/task force program
Correctional Programs
Programs in county jails that identify
immigrants with criminal convictions or
arrests
Example
•
•
•
Maricopa County, AZ
Harris County, TZ
Los Angeles County, CA
Highway Patrol Programs
Programs that stop people for traffic offenses
and/or suspected smuggling
Jurisdictions



Colorado Department of Safety
Alabama State Police
Georgia Department of Safety
Task Force/Investigative Programs
Program of officers specially trained in immigration
law that work with other officers to investigate crimes

Anti-Terrorist Units
Examples
•

Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Floating Alien Criminal Units
Examples
•
•
•
Beaufort County, SC
Collier County, FL
Prince William County, VA
Proponent’s Perspective


Increasing ICE’s ability to identify and
remove dangerous immigrants
Programs driven by the needs of local law
enforcement
Criticisms

ICE has failed to define program’s objectives or the extent of
the officers’ authority, or supervise local agencies.

Local law enforcement agencies use 287(g) to discriminate
against immigrant populations, especially Latino communities.
Example – racial profiling in Maricopa County, AZ

Programs target immigrants with minor convictions.

Immigrants experience unwarranted and prolonged detention.

Immigrant communities are afraid to report crimes because
they see local law enforcement as part of ICE.
Secured Communities
Another Collaboration between ICE
and Local Law Enforcement
Secured Communities’ Purpose
1.
3 Purposes
Identify criminal aliens through modernized
information sharing
2.
Prioritize enforcement actions to ensure
apprehension and removal of dangerous aliens
3.
Transform criminal alien enforcement processes
and systems to achieve lasting results
Identification

Upon arrest and booking, local law enforcement enter an
immigrant’s fingerprints into the FBI and ICE databases to learn
about the person’s criminal and immigration history.

If the arrested immigrant has a record of an immigration
violation, ICE and local law enforcement are immediately
notified and can issue a detainer for the person.

A detainer is an ICE request to be notified by the arresting
agency before the arrested individual is released.
Prioritization of Crimes
3 Levels of Crimes

Level 1 – individuals with convictions for major drug
offenses, murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and
kidnapping

Level 2 – individuals convicted of minor drug
offenses, burglary, fraud, money laundering, and
traffic offenses

Level 3 – individuals convicted of other offenses,
including resisting an officer
Prioritization Continued
“ICE will focus its efforts on the most dangerous
criminal aliens currently charged with, or
previously convicted of, the most serious criminal
offenses. ICE will give priority to those offenses
including, crimes involving national security,
homicide, kidnapping, assault, robbery, sex
offenses, and narcotics violations carrying
sentences of more than one years.”
Secured Communities Fact Sheet, Sept. 1, 2009
Transformation



Unlike 287(g), Secured Communities does
not require a MOA between ICE and local
law enforcement.
No local law enforcement officers are
deputized
ICE has technological presence in local
prisons and jails, no physical presence
Criticisms
Human rights groups argue that Secured
Communities do not fix the problems of
287(g); they compound them.
•
•
•
•
•
Unnecessary or prolonged detention
Racial profiling and pretexual arrests
No complaint mechanism
No oversight or transparency
No data
Unnecessary or Prolonged
Detention






Program is focused on identifying immigrants at the arrest
stage not the conviction stage. Immigrants may be detained
longer as a result.
Once detainer is imposed, an individual cannot be released on
bail or recognizance, or because completion of sentence or
dismissal of charges.
It is harder for an individual to contest the criminal charges.
Although detainers are just requests, jails treat them a
requirement and will not release the individual.
Undocumented immigrant will remain in jail until ICE takes
action.
Detainer is supposed to be for 48 hours, but ICE violate the
time limit and the individual stays in prolonged detention.
Racial Profiling & Pretexual Arrests
1.
2.
2 Concerns
Racial Profiling - Police officers may have an incentive or
ability to arrest people based on race and ethnicity
Pretextual Arrests - Police officers may arrest people
with suspected immigration violations
While little data is available on the implementation of Secured
Communities, the Warren Institute’s September 2009 report of
ICE’s Criminal Alien Program discovered a dramatic increase
of discretionary arrests of Latinos for petty offenses.
No Complaint Mechanism
ICE does not provide for a complaint or
redress procedure for individuals erroneously
arrested, identified by DHS databases, or
detained by DHS.
No Oversight or Transparency
Although Secured Communities is new, the
program may suffer the lack of ICE oversight
of 287(g) programs. No regulations on the
implementation of Secured Communities
exist. DHS fact sheets and press releases do
not mention any requirements for data
collection, audits, or oversight.
No Accurate Data

Because of no requirements for data collection, no one knows about
the implementation or effectiveness of Secured Communities.

Local jurisdictions can participate in multiple programs (287(g), CAP,
and Secured Communities). When a detainer is issued for an arrested
immigrant, it is hard to determine which program produced the
detainer.

To determine the effectiveness of and any possible discrimination
from, the following are needed:
o Statistics on the crimes for which immigrants are arrested
o Disposition of the underlying criminal case
o Nationality and ethnicity of the arrested immigrants are needed.
The Chilling Effect of 287(g) & Secured
Communities: Fact or Myth
Local law enforcement and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)
reports that Latino communities statistically report crimes at the same
levels as non-Latino communities.
However, local law enforcement and CIS have not surveyed to
members of Latino and other immigrant communities to see if Secured
Communities and 287(g) programs produce a chilling effect on
immigrants. Immigrants may not trust local law enforcement because
they see local law enforcement as ICE
Conclusion – Without a culturally sensitive survey of members of
immigrant communities on how they perceive both types of programs,
proponents and opponents will not know if a chilling effect exists.
For More Information







January 2009 GAO Report
www.gao.gov/new.items/d09109.pdf
American Immigration Council - Immigration Policy Center
www.immigrationpolicy.org
American Immigrant Lawyer’s Association
www.aila.org
ACLU
www.aclu.org
Human Rights Watch
www.hrw.org
National Immigration Law Center
www.nilc.org
Warren Institute, UC Berkeley School of Law
www.law.berkeley.edu/6838.htm
Lisa Johnson-Firth, Esq.
Principal
Immigration & Human Rights Law Firm, PLLC
9119 Church Street
Manassas VA 20110
www.immigrantsfirst.com