By Jen Riddle
ICE has been partnering with state and local law enforcement on an increasing basis through such programs as Secure Communities in order to place civil immigration detainers on individuals it wishes to remove from the United States. Local police often agree to detain these individuals for up to 48 hours beyond when they would otherwise be released. While ICE claims it uses detainers to target convicted criminals who pose a threat to public safety, recent data suggests that this is not the case. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University analyzed records of 436,000 detainers issued by ICE during 2012 and 2013. According to the analysis, a mere 18 percent of detainers targeted individuals who had been convicted of a serious offense classified by ICE as a Level 1 or Level 2 crime. Thirty-two percent were placed on individuals who had only a misdemeanor or a petty offense conviction (such as a traffic violation, driving under the influence, or illegal entry) and 50 percent on individuals who had not been convicted of any criminal offense.
These statistics around ICE’s use of immigration detainers are troubling as hundreds of thousands of people who have lived for years as contributing members of our communities are being funneled into the removal system. Among the families destroyed by the deportation of loved ones are many who would qualify for legalization upon the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. What can you do to limit the involvement of local law enforcement agencies in enforcing federal immigration laws? How can you stop the continued use of immigration detainers to deport hardworking members of your community?
Learn the Detainer Statistics Specific to Your Area
Consult the TRAC report to review the number of detainers issued in your state as well as the criminal histories, if any, of the individuals the detainers targeted. It is concerning that in 35 states, 50 percent or more of the detainers issued were aimed at individuals without any criminal record. The report also sorts detainer statistics by detention facility. The largest numbers of detainers were placed against individuals in Los Angeles County and Maricopa County jails (over 10,000 detainers in each facility) with 39 percent and 57 percent , respectively, targeting individuals with no convictions. The information in this report can be a useful tool to understanding and educating others about the extent to which ICE is targeting individuals in your community with minimal or no criminal background.
Educate Law Enforcement and Policymakers About ICE Detainer Practices
ICE detainers are non-binding requests
Many local law enforcement officials do not understand that compliance with ICE detainer requests is not mandatory. Rather, it is within the discretion of the local law enforcement agency whether or not to continue to hold the subject of a detainer for ICE to pick up. This is confirmed by the federal regulation governing detainers (8 CFR §287.7), the I-247 detainer form, and various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) communications, as well as by a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Galarza v. Lehigh County.
Detainer use presents various constitutional concerns
Immigration detainers are not arrest warrants which are issued by judges and require probable cause. Rather, detainers are issued by ICE officers upon reason to believe an individual may be removable. Detainers are not evidence that someone is deportable or is not a U.S. citizen. While the 4th Amendment ensures a probable cause hearing within 48 hours for those arrested without a warrant, the detainer regulation permits prolonged detention without a hearing for 48 hours excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Individuals subject to detainers are often held longer than 48 hours. Police are not required to give detainees a copy of the detainer form which may violate the fundamental requirement of notice before being deprived of one’s liberty.
Indiscriminate issuance of detainers makes communities less safe for everyone
Local law enforcement compliance with detainers creates fear among immigrants of any interaction with the police, including reporting crimes. 44 percent of Latinos surveyed in a University of Illinois study reported they are less likely to contact police if they have been the victim of a crime because they fear that police officers will inquire into their immigration status. The Major Cities Police Association agrees that local enforcement of immigrations law undermines trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which compromises the safety of the whole community.
Facilitating deportation destroys families
Issuance of detainers against low level offenders and those with no criminal record results in the deportation of hardworking members of our community and often leaves U.S. citizen and permanent resident children without a parent or breadwinner.
Detaining individuals at ICE’s request is costly to states and localities
Keeping individuals in jail for an additional 48 hours (or more) is expensive and ICE generally does not reimburse localities for these costs. Los Angeles County taxpayers, for instance, spend $26 million a year to detain people for ICE while the state of California spends more than $65 million annually. This additional incarceration drains scarce local resources, wastes taxpayer money, and can subject local law enforcement agencies to liability when ICE mistakenly places detainers on U.S. citizens.
Advocate for Limited Law Enforcement Compliance with Detainers
Civil immigration enforcement is the purview of federal immigration authorities and should not be shifted to local police whose primary job is to prevent crime and protect communities. We must respect the dignity and humanity of all individuals, regardless of immigration status. Consider undertaking the following actions to reduce the deportation of non-criminals in your state.
Join a campaign to pass a local ordinance or state-wide law limiting detainer compliance
Over the past few years, two states and more than 20 localities have implemented laws or policies restricting the extent to which law enforcement will continue to detain individuals to hand over to ICE. Some prevent jails from honoring immigration detainers unless the arrested individual has actually been charged with or convicted of a particular criminal offense, usually a serious or violent felony. Others refuse to comply with detainers without a prior written agreement from ICE agreeing to reimburse them for all detainer-related expenses. Still others decline to honor immigration detainers under any circumstances.
Detainer bills are currently pending in Massachusetts and Maryland, and there are a number of local campaigns in various counties and cities, including Austin, Texas, and Philadelphia and Norristown, Pennsylvania. Reach out to sympathetic city council members or state legislators to educate them about the dangers of honoring ICE detainers and ask them to sponsor a local anti-detainer ordinance or a state-wide law (often referred to as a “TRUST act” after the “Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools” (TRUST) Acts passed in California and Connecticut).
Recruit local law enforcement and other government officials as allies
An increasing number of local law enforcement leaders are standing up to federal pressure to enforce immigration laws. Ask law enforcement to speak out, and show them examples of other law enforcement opinion pieces written on the issue:
Governor O’Malley of Maryland recently wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson requesting an explanation as to why over 40 percent of individuals deported from his state under Secure Communities have no criminal record. According to the Governor, recent deportation numbers show that DHS is deviating from what it claims is the focus of the program - violent criminals who pose a public safety and national security threat.
Collaborate with advocates to put a human face on detainer practices
As immigration service providers, you have clients who have been impacted by detainer practices. In the California TRUST Act campaign, spokespeople included a single mother arrested for selling tamales in front of Wal-Mart and another mother nearly deported after a complaint to the police about her barking dogs. Help your clients share their personal stories with legislators and policymakers.
For additional ideas about community education, coalition building, and strategies for engaging with local law enforcement and decision makers, please consult CLINIC’s Toolkit for Communities to Advocate Against ICE Partnerships with Local Law Enforcement Agencies and the National Immigration Project’s All-In-One Guide to Defeating ICE Hold Requests.