Secure Communities is an American deportation program that relies on partnership among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.[1] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the interior immigration enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is the program manager.
John Morton of ICE called Secure Communities “the future of immigration enforcement” because it “focuses our resources on identifying and removing the most serious criminal offenders first and foremost.”[2]
Secure Communities relies on integrated databases and partnerships with local and state jailers to build domestic deportation capacity. The goals, as outlined in a 2009 report to Congress, are to: “1. IDENTIFY criminal aliens through modernized information sharing; 2. PRIORITIZE enforcement actions to ensure apprehension and removal of dangerous criminal aliens; and 3. TRANSFORM criminal alien enforcement processes and systems to achieve lasting results.” [3]
The program has come under controversy, however, for misrepresenting who is being picked up and what is expected of law enforcement partners. Secure Communities was created administratively, not by congressional mandate, and to date, no regulations have been promulgated to govern the program’s implementation.
By summer 2011 many state and local partners to the program have come to resent it, because of its detrimental effects on local social fabrics and law enforcement operations. The implementation of the program has been criticized for not sticking to its original goals of deporting criminals and using the program as a general deportation facilitation tool. The Obama administration, increasingly aware of the negative impact of its deportation policies on the administration's prospects in the upcoming presidential election, moved toward mollifying some aspects of the Secure Communities enforcement policies.
Contents |
Secure Communities was piloted in 2008.[4] Under the administration of George W. Bush, ICE recruited a total of 14 jurisdictions. The first program partner was Harris County Sheriff's Office (Texas).[5]
By March 2011, under President Barack Obama, the program was expanded to over 1,210 jurisdictions.[6] ICE seeks to have all 3,141 jurisdictions (state, county, and local jails and prisons) participating by 2013.[7]
From Secure Communities’ activation through March 2011, 140,396 convicted criminal aliens have been booked into ICE custody resulting in 72,445 deportations.[8] Each year, law enforcement officers arrest approximately one million noncitizens accused of crimes.[9]
The costs of the program are unclear. The Houston Chronicle reported in 2008 that, according to ICE officials, “cost [is] between $930 million and $1 billion. Congress dedicated $200 million for the program in 2008 and set aside $150 million for fiscal year 2009.” [10] Currently Secure Communities does not provide for reimbursement to states and localities for the costs of participation.
A New York Times editorial called Secure Communities “misguided,” in part for how it “[strains] local resources.”[11] Meanwhile, a Washington Post editorial praised the program, asserting that it “has neither inclination nor resources to deport suspects with otherwise clean records who have been arrested for low-level infractions.”[12]
Secure Communities relies on partnerships and biometric technology to build deportation capacity. “ICE and the FBI are working together to take advantage of the strong relationships already forged between the FBI and state and local law enforcement necessary to assist ICE in achieving their goals," said FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Assistant Director Tom Bush in 2009.[13]
For every person booked into jail, local authorities run fingerprints against federal immigration and criminal databases. IDENT is an DHS-owned database that keeps biometric records of immigration applicants, certain criminals, and those suspected of or known to be terrorists. IAFIS is an FBI-owned database of biometric criminal records. Ordinarily, the fingerprints of county and state arrestees are submitted to the FBI only. Under Secure Communities, the prints go to ICE too. If an individual's fingerprints match those of a non U.S. citizen (including legal resident), an automated process notifies the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) of ICE. Officials then evaluate the case, based on immigration status and criminal history.
The net effect, according to former ICE Secretary Julie L. Myers, is to “create a virtual ICE presence at every local jail.”[14]
| Year | Total Submissions to ICE |
| 2009 | 828,119 |
|---|---|
| 2010 | 3,376,753 |
| 2011 (first five months) | 2,414,079 |
When there is a match, ICE may choose to place a “detainer” on the individual. This is a request for the jail to hold that person for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date, so that ICE can take custody and initiate deportation proceedings.[16] Legal immigrants convicted of certain crimes are subject to deportation. Undocumented immigrants can be deported even if they have committed no crime. ICE officials told the New York Times that, because of flaws in the database system, about 5,880 people identified through Secure Communities turned out to be United States citizens by 2009.[17] The New Mexico Sentencing Commission is preparing to survey the costs to jails of holding prisoners under ICE detainers.
ICE has divided immigrant prisoners into three risk levels:[18][19]
Secure Communities Executive Director David Venturella testified to Congress: “We have adopted a risk-based strategy that focuses, first, on criminal aliens who pose the greatest threat to our communities. To manage this increased workload and prudently scale the system capabilities, we are classifying all criminal aliens based on the severity of the crimes they have been convicted of.” According to the agency, Secure Communities prioritizes illegal immigrants who have been accused or convicted of “crimes involving national security, homicide, kidnapping, assault, robbery, sex offenses, and narcotics violations carrying sentences of more than one year.” [20]
However, ICE statistics show that in February 2011, only 22 percent of the six thousand expelled through the program were high-level offenders.[21] Meanwhile 28 percent had no criminal record at all.[22] The release of annual figures has triggered controversy over whether Secure Communities is identifying, detaining and expelling the right criminals.
The fact that the majority of those removed/deported by ICE are either non-criminals or Level 3 offenders has raised concern among activist and civil rights organizations.[23][24][25]
Others assert that the number of non-criminal detainees is overstated for political reasons. In June 2010, the AFL-CIO office that represents 7,000 ICE officers issued a no-confidence vote for the current ICE director alleging, among other things, that the number of non-criminal ICE deportees is over-stated due to the fact that many offenders have agreed to be deported if all charges against them are dropped and are being re-categorized as non-criminal. The report cites as proof that although ICE internally reports that 90% of all ICE detainees in its custody were arrested by local authorities, it publicly publishes otherwise.[26][27]
| Year | Total | Level 1 Crimes | % of Total | Level 2/3 Crimes | % of Total | % of Submissions Identified as Aliens by ICE |
| 2009 | 95,664 | 12,785 | 13.37% | 82,879 | 86.64% | 11.56% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 248,166 | 40,216 | 16.21% | 207,950 | 83.80% | 7.35% |
| 2011(5 months) | 133,205 | 18,196 | 13.66% | 115,009 | 86.34% | 5.52% |
| Year | Total | Level 1 Crimes | % of Total | Level 2 Crimes | % of Total | Level 3 Crimes | % of Total | Non-criminal | % of Total | % of identified Aliens detained by ICE |
| 2009 | 37,908 | 13,170 | 34.75% | 4,345 | 11.47% | 12,343 | 32.56% | 8,050 | 21.24% | 39.63% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 100,500 | 32,727 | 32.57% | 13,788 | 13.72% | 26,757 | 26.63% | 27,228 | 27.10% | 40.50% |
| 2011 (5 months) | 43,983 | 9,988 | 22.71% | 6,751 | 15.35% | 9,919 | 22.56% | 17,325 | 39.39% | 38.24% |
| Year | Total | Level 1 Crimes | % of Total | Level 2 Crimes | % of Total | Level 3 Crimes | % of Total | Non-criminal | % of Total | % of Aliens detained by ICE and deported |
| 2009 | 14,476 | 3,352 | 23.16% | 1,515 | 10.47% | 5,865 | 40.52% | 3,744 | 25.87% | 38.19% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 49,839 | 13,971 | 28.04% | 6,015 | 12.07% | 16,059 | 32.23% | 13,794 | 27.68% | 49.60% |
| 2011 (5 months) | 29,903 | 7,348 | 24.58% | 5,229 | 17.49% | 7,817 | 26.15% | 9,509 | 31.80% | 67.99% |
Significant data disclosures on Secure Communities' performance became publicly available after a non-profit advocacy groups sued for disclosure.
In July 2009, DHS issued new regulations that asserted all information regarding an Secure Communities sister program “shall not be considered public records.” [31] New contracts prohibited local officials from communicating with media or constituents about the program without ICE approval.
Citing transparency concerns, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for information on Secure Communities.[32]
The groups charged in a press release: “Although ICE presents Secure Communities as an innocuous information sharing program, it seems designed to function as a dragnet to funnel even more people into the already mismanaged ICE detention and removal system… no regulations have been promulgated and little information is available about the program in the public domain. The limited information that has been released is vague and seems to indicate that ICE is not executing its stated enforcement priorities.” [33]
Federal authorities released an initial batch of 15,000 internal documents in February 2011.[34] The non-profits started a blog entitled "Uncover the Truth" to catalogue the newly obtained government documents and media coverage of the program.[35]
Some jurisdictions have tried to "opt out" from the program believing that participation was not mandatory.[36] Homeland Security officials have contradicted each other about whether Secure Communities is mandatory or voluntary.
An August 2010 DHS memo entitled “Secure Communities: Setting the Record Straight” suggests that counties have the ability to opt out of the program, even when their respective states have joined: "If a jurisdiction does not wish to activate on its scheduled date in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it must formally notify its state identification bureau and ICE in writing (email, letter of facsimile). Upon receipt of that information, ICE will request a meeting with federal partners, the jurisdiction, and the state to discuss any issues and come to a resolution, which may include adjusting the jurisdiction’s activation date in or removing the jurisdiction from the deployment plan."[37]
On Sept. 7, 2010, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that jurisdictions that wished to withdraw from the program could do so. Yet an October 2010 Washington Post article quoted an anonymous senior ICE official asserting: “Secure Communities is not based on state or local cooperation in federal law enforcement…State and local law enforcement agencies are going to continue to fingerprint people and those fingerprints are forwarded to FBI for criminal checks. ICE will take immigration action appropriately.”[38]
At a press conference days later, Napolitano modified her position: “What my letter said was that we would work with them on the implementation in terms of timing and the like…But we do not view this as an opt-in, opt-out program.”[39] She did not provide legal justification. Meanwhile, in Arlington, VA, the County Board unanimously passed a resolution to opt out of Secure Communities.[40]
Venturella stated at a policy conference: "Have we created some of the confusion out there? Absolutely we have."[41] In a January 2009 letter to the California Department of Justice, Venturella indicated that ICE would obtain a Statement of Intent for every county-level participant in Secure Communities.[42] Yet a procedure to do so never materialized.
In California, three counties unsuccessfully petitioned outgoing Attorney General Jerry Brown to withdraw their jurisdictions from the program. San Mateo’s sheriff and Board of Supervisors feared the chilling effect that integration of state and ICE databases would have on immigrants as volunteers in public programs.[43]
Santa Clara Supervisor George Shirakawa, criticizing Secure Communities as an unfunded mandate, said, “We are not in a position to do ICE’s work.”[44] Deputy Counsel Anjali Bhargava is investigating whether the county can limit participation “the extent [ICE requests] are subject to reimbursement or required by law.”
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, supported by a supermajority of the Board of Supervisors, requested three times in writing to opt out of Secure Communities.[45] His jail already has a policy of reporting to ICE anyone booked for a felony and not US-born. He feared that fingerprint sharing for all prisoners, including those acquitted of charges, violates the local sanctuary ordinance without serving public safety.[46] “The lack of clarity,” Hennessey wrote in a lawsuit against ICE, “makes it difficult for me to explain my attempts to opt-out to my colleagues and to be accountable to my constituents.”[47]
In a surprise move, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed up for Secure Communities soon after winning re-election.[48] He had rejected participation months earlier because a pilot run of the program in Boston was still unproven. Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth Heffernan explained the reversal in position: "It has become clear now that this program is going to be mandatory for all communities in the near future." Patrick reversed this decision on June 7th, 2011, saying he was "dubious about [Massachusetts] taking on the federal role of immigration enforcement… and even more skeptical of the potential impact Secure Communities could have." [49]
Washington, D.C., and the states of New York and Illinois have also tried to opt out of the program.[50]
In 2011 the governors of Massachusetts, Illinois and New York announced their desire to pull out of the Secure Communities program, as did municipal officials in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has asked President Obama to suspend the deportation program, which is based on administrative authority only. According to Boston mayor Thomas Menino, the program, contrary to its stated goal, "is negatively impacting public safety" and numerous immigrants have been deported after committing only minor traffic violations. John T. Morton, the head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, responded by asserting the agency's intention to extend the program nationwide by 2013, regardless of local assent.[51]
In the August 18, 2011 letter from the office of Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois to John Morton, the Governor demands that ICE confirms the willingness of each of the 26 Illinois counties (previously) "activated" to continue participation in Secure Communities, by contacting the counties directly. The State is reacting to making the "troubled program" "mandatory and nationwide". According to the letter, the Secure Communities program in its current implementation is "contrary to the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICE and the Illinois State Police and ignores the State of Illinois' May 4, 2011 termination of its participation". The Governor is deeply troubled by Secure Communities having the effect opposite to its stated purpose, as ordinary individuals not involved in crimes are frequently targeted and the role of local law enforcement and the communities' involvement in public safety are compromised. Of those deported from Illinois through May 2011, by ICE's own accounting, less that 22% were convicted of a serious crime, 75% were never convicted of a serious crime and more than 21% were not convicted of any crime. Secure Communities, as currently structured, is far different from the program that was originally presented to the State of Illinois and its constituent counties. The Governor's letter hints of a possible legal challenge, by stating that the State will continue to monitor and evaluate the program and consider all of its available options.[52][53]
The Obama administration, criticized by the left, Hispanic organizations and immigration reform advocates for the harsh immigration crackdown it has been pursuing since the early days of Obama presidency, announced on August 18, 2011 a partial change in its deportation policy.[54][55]
According to Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary, about 300,000 deportation subjects will have their cases reviewed, with the intention of concentrating on individuals who have committed "flagrant violations" and suspending many low priority deportation cases (immigrants who pose no threat to public safety or national security). The "prosecutorial discretion" reviews will be done on case-by-case bases and possible relief for the accused will be provided by Secretary Napolitano. Individuals who qualify for relief can also be granted work permits. The new policy should also make it less likely that the government will initiate new deportation cases involving people with no significant criminal record.[54][55]
The decision, criticized by right-wing politicians and groups intent on stopping or reducing immigration into the United States, is expected to help President Obama overcome his troubled relationship with Latino voters, as he heads for the 2012 presidential election. The new administrative policy is not intended as a replacement for the DREAM Act or other immigration reform legislation planned in the future.[54][55]
By summer 2011, the Obama administration had deported about one million "illegal aliens", mostly indigent Mexican nationals, dwarfing the corresponding period records of previous presidents.[56]
As of mid-November, reports from the field suggest that it may not be easy to contain the deportation climate unleashed. Training for enforcement officials on new measures to be applied has been insufficient, despite a public policy offensive by Janet Napolitano and John Morton. Some immigration officers are uncertain about the meaning of the new policy, other resent directives not backed-up by changes in the law. There has been "a steady march of deportations of immigrants with no criminal record and with extensive roots in the United States", while others have had cases against them dismissed. A current report by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council has reached "the overwhelming conclusion" that "most ICE offices have not changed their practices since the issuance of these new directives".[57]