Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Solitary in detention
A look at immigrants who were held in solitary confinement while in immigration detention. By Catherine Rentz, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Few ICE Detainers Target Serious Criminals
Few ICE Detainers Target Serious Criminals
Very timely case-by-case data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that no more than 14 percent of the "detainers" issued by the government in FY 2012 and the first four months of FY 2013 met the agency's stated goal of targeting individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety or national security. In fact, roughly half of the 347,691 individuals subject to an ICE detainer (47.7 percent) had no record of a criminal conviction, not even a minor traffic violation.[1]
The very recent ICE data further showed that if traffic violations (including driving while intoxicated) and marijuana possession are put aside, fully two thirds of all detainers had no record of a conviction. See Figure 1.
This thoroughly-documented government enforcement effort sharply contrasts with the multiple press releases and official statements issued by the agency. "The removal of aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety shall be ICE's highest immigration enforcement priority," claimed former ICE Director John Morton in an agency-wide memo describing the Obama Administration's approach to immigration enforcement announced in June 2010. The stark difference between the agency's rhetoric and its actual performance is startling.
Detainers, often called "immigration holds," are a primary tool that ICE uses to apprehend the suspects it is seeking. The official ICE notices ask local, state and federal law enforcement agencies not to release suspected non-citizens held at their facilities in order to give ICE an opportunity to take them into its custody.[2] However, there is no legal obligation for state and local law enforcement agencies to honor these detainers, and some jurisdictions have begun refusing to hold arrestees for minor violations or those who pose little risk to public safety.[3]
The extensive new information presented in this report about ICE detainers and how the agency has used them was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. These data cover all ICE detainers placed during the sixteen month period from October 1, 2011 to January 31, 2013.
(This is the second in a three-part series discussing ICE detainers. Part I of the series, published July 25, covered monthly trends in detainer use and found that the average monthly number of detainers issued this fiscal year was down 19 percent from the monthly average level during FY 2012. It also examined which ICE programs had issued them. Part III of the series, now in preparation, will compare data on a state-by-state and a detention facility-by-detention facility basis to examine where ICE detainers were sent. TRAC's February report on detainers covered earlier time periods and was based on much more limited information.)
Who Is Being Targeted: Reasons Cited When Detainer Placed
The boxes checked on the detainer forms indicate the reason(s) DHS officers are asking the law enforcement agencies to hold the arrestees. In its FOIA request to ICE, TRAC asked for the information recorded in these boxes both on the old detainer form in use until December 21, 2012 and on the new form now in use.[4] Data on which boxes had been checked were not provided to TRAC; ICE claimed this information was not recorded in its databases.
The box(es) checked on the old form indicated at what point in the enforcement process the detainer was issued. Was ICE just initiating an investigation to determine if a person is subject to removal? Or, for example, was there a final order of removal that ICE was seeking to execute? On the new form, the phrase "initiating an investigation..." has been replaced with the statement that there "is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal" with checkboxes to indicate what the reason is. The available boxes include such options as "a prior felony conviction or has been charged with a felony" or criminally convicted of "illegal entry..." For a full list of reasons, see Figure 3.
The agency's assertion that it does not record which box or boxes are checked on either the old or the replacement I-247 is surprising, if not unbelievable. If true, how does ICE management monitor whether agency policies on issuing detainers are in fact being carried out? What was the purpose of Director Morton issuing the revised directive last December if the agency's managers did not plan to assess its impact on the agents' behavior in the field? Without some way to measure what is going on, a large agency such as ICE would be acting in the dark when it attempted to manage its operations.
ICE did provide some information as to the status of the enforcement process as of March 2013, some months after the detainers were placed. These data are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 4. As of that time, a removal order had been issued for 13 percent of the individuals. For an additional 3 percent of the cases, either an arrest warrant had been issued or an immigration court proceeding had begun to secure a removal order. For all the remaining cases, an investigation was still going on (74%) or had been terminated (10%).
Information TRAC Sought on Criminal Charges
TRAC also asked for information about the specific crimes these individuals were charged with, the dates when the charges were filed, and which of them had resulted in a conviction or were still pending. In addition, TRAC requested ICE's classification of these cases by their seriousness — Level 1 being most serious to Level 3 being least serious. Because ICE has several classification systems, TRAC requested the data on each one.
An increasing number of local law enforcement agencies, for example, have expressed concern that SC may be sweeping up and processing for deportations individuals who were charged with only a minor violation at the cost of undermining the community's trust and cooperation with local law enforcement officers. ICE has countered that individuals currently charged with a minor violation may have committed serious crimes in the past and thereby pose a clear threat to public safety. Immigration rights advocates have challenged the wisdom of using long ago convictions to judge the current threat posed by individuals who subsequently have shown themselves to be law abiding and valuable members of society.
TRAC encountered numerous problems when it sought this information from ICE. First, without explanation, ICE failed to release any data on charges that were still pending or had not resulted in a conviction. Nor did it release information on the LESC Levels that individuals were assigned by Secure Communities. ICE gave as its reason that "LESC Levels are those reported with INTEROP Matches; they are not generally linked or reported to individual detainer cases, and accordingly [were] not being provided."
It is revealing that, while the agency initially extracted the requested data about "Detainer Threat Level" from its computerized records, the FOIA office then redacted this data. ICE FOIA officer Catrina Pavlik-Keenan, in a letter to TRAC, claimed that the release of this information "could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." Officer Pavlik-Keenan did not explain her reasoning. If the detainer threat levels reflect the priorities championed by former ICE Director Morton, who stepped down last July, it is difficult to understand the agency's claim that releasing the information would be harmful. In fact, of course, all that the requested information would reveal is whether the agency is actually carrying out its announced priorities.
Finally, ICE also withheld information on which detainers had been issued as part of the Secure Communities program and which were issued under other programs it administers. (See TRAC's discussion of these in Part I of this series.) When an agency withholds requested information, the FOIA requires it to explain the legal basis for the decision. In this case, however, it simply said it wasn't the agency's practice to provide it. On a similar note, TRAC's request for information identifying individuals who fell into any other agency priorities — "ICE fugitive, prior removal and return, entered without inspection, visa violators and overstays" — was also withheld. The agency claimed that "they cannot be [...] reliably" determined and hence were not provided.[5]
ICE Targeting Based on Criminal Convictions
Even in the face of ICE's general foot dragging, the agency did provide case-by-case data on the most serious conviction and the date that this had occurred. It also released for each detainer case ICE's RC Threat Level — Level 1, 2, or 3 — which is based on convictions. In addition, it released information on whether or not the individual was classified as an aggravated felon. Following are the highlights from the analysis of these data.
The top 25 offenses ICE recorded as the most serious conviction for the individuals who were subject to a detainer is shown in Table 2. The much longer list covering all offenses is found in this detail table.
As noted earlier, nearly half (48%) of detainers were issued for individuals who had no recorded conviction for any criminal offense. Where there was a conviction, driving under the influence of liquor (DWI) was listed most frequently as the most serious offense. This was the case for one out of ten of the detainers. The second most frequent charge was a conviction for a simple traffic offense (6%), followed in third place by marijuana possession (2%).
Considered together, ICE data show that nearly two out of three detainers (65%) were issued for the following reasons — no charge of any kind, DWI, simple traffic offense, or marijuana possession. Next in frequency was illegal entry itself (1.9%).[6] If the list is limited to those offenses ICE classifies as Level 1, at most less than fifty thousand or 14 percent met this standard.[7]
Given the fact that many individuals included in these tables were already serving time in federal and state prisons at the time the detainer was placed [see Part I of this series], the low proportion who had any criminal conviction was quite unexpected.[8]
When the detainers are classified by the seriousness of the "RC Threat Level," the data show that only 23 percent of the total — fewer than one in four — were classified at Level 1, the most serious threat. According to ICE, Level 1 is restricted to non-citizens: "convicted of 'aggravated felonies,' as defined in § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes punishable by more than one year, commonly referred to as 'felonies'." This figure is larger than the 14 percent convicted of serious crimes since ICE also includes anyone convicted of two or more felonies in its Level 1 category, whatever their nature.
In nearly half of all cases the threat level recorded was "NA" — that is, the individual posed no threat since he or she had no criminal conviction.[9] See Figure 5 and Table 3.
See appendix detail table which tabulates the most serious conviction offense against the RC Threat Level that ICE assigned.
ICE Treats Minor Crimes As Serious Threats to Public Safety
TRAC's analysis turned up other equally troubling conditions. When the agency's threat levels based on convictions are tabulated against the most serious convictions, it turns out that minor violations can sometimes lead to the placement of an individual in the highest threat level category. This raises profound questions. Is ICE targeting the wrong individuals because the enforcement information it receives is flawed? Or are the formulas used by ICE in implementing its priorities assigning individuals incorrect threat levels?
Examples of the apparent anomalies can be seen in Table 4. This table lists the most common serious offenses that led the agency to place an individual in the highest threat category. Ranked eleventh among the most common offenses were simple traffic violations. Marijuana possession was the sixth most common. And in second place was DWI, driving while intoxicated. In each situation, the listed offense is the most serious conviction the individual had received.
In earlier studies, TRAC compared ICE's recorded threat levels with the most serious criminal convictions for individuals and found them to be quite consistent. After ICE revised its criteria, however, TRAC found that the specific offense for its highest (Level 1) seriousness category no longer appeared to match well with the offenses recorded as the most serious conviction. See section entitled "Defining 'Criminal' Activity: What ICE Counts" in TRAC's February 2012 report.
The new system, based on a combination of convictions rather than only the most serious one, is more complicated. TRAC therefore sought the detailed procedures now used by ICE to determine the RC threat levels. These detailed ICE implementation rules are contained in the document illustrated in Figure 6.
There are a number of interesting features of these operational rules:
When the Conviction Had Occurred
Because the date of the most serious conviction was included in the information TRAC received, we were able to divide the data into whether the most serious conviction had occurred before or after the detainer was placed and analyze these records separately.
Convictions after the detainer was placed. TRAC wanted to know just how often the most serious conviction occurred after the detainer was issued, and what was the level of seriousness of that offense. Convictions that occurred after the detainer was issued — presumably relating to the arrest that triggered the detainer — would be likely to be the most serious when it was either the first conviction, or it involved a particularly serious crime. In case serious offenses took longer to resolve we divided the data by when the detainer had been placed, in order to see if a larger proportion of serious offenses turned up when a year or more had elapsed since the arrest. (Results showed that this had not occurred.)
There were 38,008 detainers where the available information recorded a conviction after the detainer was placed. Table 5 provides a breakdown of their "RC Threat Levels." Only 20 percent of these detainers had been classified as most serious (Level 1) while 58 percent were classified as least serious (Level 3). The data thus indicate that detainers are being issued in tens of thousands of cases for minor offenses where there is no prior history of serious criminal activity.
The data so far provided by the agency do not allow us to answer an important question: how often are detainers issued for a recent minor offense when the individual had been convicted of a serious crime in the past? For this TRAC would need information about the crime which had resulted in the arrest giving rise to the detainer. Unfortunately ICE has chosen not to release this information.
Convictions before the detainer was placed. TRAC also wanted to know how often long-ago convictions were a basis for placing the detainer.[11] As shown in Table 6, about half (49%) of the most serious offenses were committed more than five years ago, and about one quarter (23%) more than 10 years ago. For more than four thousand (4%), the conviction occurred more than 20 years ago. And incredibly, there were a few where detainers involved convictions that were at least 40 years old.
Because ICE only released information on the most serious conviction, it is not possible to determine if that conviction was the only one or even the last one. But the data do show that it is common for the most serious conviction to have occurred many years prior to when ICE sought to take those individuals into custody and deport them.
Conclusion
As the old maxim says, actions speak louder than words. And in this case, the information about the nearly 350,000 detainers obtained and analyzed by TRAC present a reality entirely different from the one that the government has attempted to paint in its many official statements.
Footnotes [1] According to ICE, the FY2012 - FY2013 records include all detainers that were issued during this period, including those issued by these ICE offices and divisions: "Detention and Deportation (DDP), Fugitive Operations (FUG), Alternatives to Detention (ATD), Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Detained Docket Control (DDC), Non-Detained Docket Control (NDD), Violent Criminal Alien Section (VCS), Joint Criminal Alien Response Team (JCT), Juvenile (JUV), and Law Enforcement Area Response (LEA)). All 287(g) detainers were also included.
[2] The immigration "hold" is supposed to be limited to "48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond the time when the subject would otherwise been released from [...] custody" (see DHS Form I-247 and Figure 3).
[3] See, for example: Santa Clara County; San Francisco County; Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Newark; Chicago. See also: California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris' guidance on detainers and commentary by San Francisco district attorney George Gascón.
[4] According to the accompanying memorandum issued by ICE Director John Morton, these revisions were made to provide a better mechanism to "ensure that ICE's finite enforcement resources are dedicated, to the greatest extent possible, to individuals whose removal promotes public safety, national security, border security, and the integrity of the immigration system."
[5] TRAC has filed an administrative appeal contesting the failure to provide all of the data requested. The ICE appeals officer remanded the request back for reprocessing. However, the remand expressed no opinion and included no instructions on what about the agency's original response was deficient. TRAC is currently waiting for the results of this "reprocessing."
[6] Illegal re-entry was separately listed. Only 0.3 percent had this as their most serious charge.
[7] This figure includes all offenses ICE categorizes as a "Level 1" offense in its operational rules. Because TRAC did not have sentence information, broad categories like assault and larceny were all counted as Level 1 offenses, while ICE would exclude any of these where the sentence was less than one year. There were also a few offenses that ICE elevated to Level 1 based on their sentence which otherwise were classed by ICE as Level 2 or Level 3 offenses — the classification used by TRAC. All in all, while the 14 percent figure is not exact, it is likely higher than the actual number of "serious crimes" based upon ICE's definitions if full information had been available. For ICE's offense-by-offense classification rules, see Figure 6.
[8] For example, there are reportedly over 100,000 noncitizens serving sentences in state and federal prisons on any day (see sourcebook of criminal justice statistics). Because this statistic does not cover noncitizens serving sentences in local jails, it underestimates the actual number of individuals that ICE prison programs handle.
[9] When the same data are examined over time, the proportion showing any threat as well as the proportion in the Level 1 threat category both show slight declines. This could be simply a reporting artifact since classification is based upon convictions, and a greater proportion of charges may still be pending in more recent months.
[10] The operational rules require that there be two convictions classified as "Level 2" to move the individual into the most serious Level 1 category. There are a number of crimes listed that are classed as Level 2 if they have sentences of less than one year. Also, a Level 3 offense where the recorded sentence is one year or more is upgraded to Level 2, and two of these then rates elevation to Level 1.
[11] Because detainers are also placed on individuals who are currently serving a prison term to ensure that when the sentence is completed they are turned over to ICE rather than released into the community, we eliminated those records that contained an entry in a field labeled "projected release date." There were 44,735 records with projected release dates. Of these, 39,489 concerned convictions that occurred before the detainer was placed and were therefore eliminated from Table 6. This is presumably an undercount since ICE may not have recorded projected release dates for everyone who was in prison at the time.
Very timely case-by-case data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show that no more than 14 percent of the "detainers" issued by the government in FY 2012 and the first four months of FY 2013 met the agency's stated goal of targeting individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety or national security. In fact, roughly half of the 347,691 individuals subject to an ICE detainer (47.7 percent) had no record of a criminal conviction, not even a minor traffic violation.[1]
The very recent ICE data further showed that if traffic violations (including driving while intoxicated) and marijuana possession are put aside, fully two thirds of all detainers had no record of a conviction. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Most Serious Criminal Conviction
for Individuals with ICE Detainers
for Individuals with ICE Detainers
Detainers, often called "immigration holds," are a primary tool that ICE uses to apprehend the suspects it is seeking. The official ICE notices ask local, state and federal law enforcement agencies not to release suspected non-citizens held at their facilities in order to give ICE an opportunity to take them into its custody.[2] However, there is no legal obligation for state and local law enforcement agencies to honor these detainers, and some jurisdictions have begun refusing to hold arrestees for minor violations or those who pose little risk to public safety.[3]
The extensive new information presented in this report about ICE detainers and how the agency has used them was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. These data cover all ICE detainers placed during the sixteen month period from October 1, 2011 to January 31, 2013.
(This is the second in a three-part series discussing ICE detainers. Part I of the series, published July 25, covered monthly trends in detainer use and found that the average monthly number of detainers issued this fiscal year was down 19 percent from the monthly average level during FY 2012. It also examined which ICE programs had issued them. Part III of the series, now in preparation, will compare data on a state-by-state and a detention facility-by-detention facility basis to examine where ICE detainers were sent. TRAC's February report on detainers covered earlier time periods and was based on much more limited information.)
Who Is Being Targeted: Reasons Cited When Detainer Placed
The boxes checked on the detainer forms indicate the reason(s) DHS officers are asking the law enforcement agencies to hold the arrestees. In its FOIA request to ICE, TRAC asked for the information recorded in these boxes both on the old detainer form in use until December 21, 2012 and on the new form now in use.[4] Data on which boxes had been checked were not provided to TRAC; ICE claimed this information was not recorded in its databases.
The box(es) checked on the old form indicated at what point in the enforcement process the detainer was issued. Was ICE just initiating an investigation to determine if a person is subject to removal? Or, for example, was there a final order of removal that ICE was seeking to execute? On the new form, the phrase "initiating an investigation..." has been replaced with the statement that there "is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal" with checkboxes to indicate what the reason is. The available boxes include such options as "a prior felony conviction or has been charged with a felony" or criminally convicted of "illegal entry..." For a full list of reasons, see Figure 3.
The agency's assertion that it does not record which box or boxes are checked on either the old or the replacement I-247 is surprising, if not unbelievable. If true, how does ICE management monitor whether agency policies on issuing detainers are in fact being carried out? What was the purpose of Director Morton issuing the revised directive last December if the agency's managers did not plan to assess its impact on the agents' behavior in the field? Without some way to measure what is going on, a large agency such as ICE would be acting in the dark when it attempted to manage its operations.
ICE did provide some information as to the status of the enforcement process as of March 2013, some months after the detainers were placed. These data are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 4. As of that time, a removal order had been issued for 13 percent of the individuals. For an additional 3 percent of the cases, either an arrest warrant had been issued or an immigration court proceeding had begun to secure a removal order. For all the remaining cases, an investigation was still going on (74%) or had been terminated (10%).
Information TRAC Sought on Criminal Charges
TRAC also asked for information about the specific crimes these individuals were charged with, the dates when the charges were filed, and which of them had resulted in a conviction or were still pending. In addition, TRAC requested ICE's classification of these cases by their seriousness — Level 1 being most serious to Level 3 being least serious. Because ICE has several classification systems, TRAC requested the data on each one.
- LESC Levels. The first classification system is used by Secure Communities (SC) and divides offenses into three "LESC Levels" according to their perceived seriousness. This judgment is based on the most serious charge, whether or not a conviction has yet occurred. Statistics using this system are published monthly for all "INTEROP Matches" made through the Secure Communities program.
- Detainer Threat Levels. ICE refers to a second system as the "Detainer Threat Level." Similar to LESC Levels, it takes into consideration charges that haven't yet resulted in any conviction. According to ICE, this threat level "is based upon [...] the initial crime at the time the detainer is prepared." Other distinctions between these two systems, if any, remain unclear.
- RC Threat Levels. The third system — ICE refers to this as the removal case or "RC Threat Level" — is based only on convictions. Since October 1, 2010 ICE threat levels use the prioritization of criminal offenses outlined in Director Morton's ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memo of June 30, 2010 as amended and updated by the memorandum of the same title issued March 2, 2011.
An increasing number of local law enforcement agencies, for example, have expressed concern that SC may be sweeping up and processing for deportations individuals who were charged with only a minor violation at the cost of undermining the community's trust and cooperation with local law enforcement officers. ICE has countered that individuals currently charged with a minor violation may have committed serious crimes in the past and thereby pose a clear threat to public safety. Immigration rights advocates have challenged the wisdom of using long ago convictions to judge the current threat posed by individuals who subsequently have shown themselves to be law abiding and valuable members of society.
TRAC encountered numerous problems when it sought this information from ICE. First, without explanation, ICE failed to release any data on charges that were still pending or had not resulted in a conviction. Nor did it release information on the LESC Levels that individuals were assigned by Secure Communities. ICE gave as its reason that "LESC Levels are those reported with INTEROP Matches; they are not generally linked or reported to individual detainer cases, and accordingly [were] not being provided."
It is revealing that, while the agency initially extracted the requested data about "Detainer Threat Level" from its computerized records, the FOIA office then redacted this data. ICE FOIA officer Catrina Pavlik-Keenan, in a letter to TRAC, claimed that the release of this information "could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." Officer Pavlik-Keenan did not explain her reasoning. If the detainer threat levels reflect the priorities championed by former ICE Director Morton, who stepped down last July, it is difficult to understand the agency's claim that releasing the information would be harmful. In fact, of course, all that the requested information would reveal is whether the agency is actually carrying out its announced priorities.
Finally, ICE also withheld information on which detainers had been issued as part of the Secure Communities program and which were issued under other programs it administers. (See TRAC's discussion of these in Part I of this series.) When an agency withholds requested information, the FOIA requires it to explain the legal basis for the decision. In this case, however, it simply said it wasn't the agency's practice to provide it. On a similar note, TRAC's request for information identifying individuals who fell into any other agency priorities — "ICE fugitive, prior removal and return, entered without inspection, visa violators and overstays" — was also withheld. The agency claimed that "they cannot be [...] reliably" determined and hence were not provided.[5]
ICE Targeting Based on Criminal Convictions
Even in the face of ICE's general foot dragging, the agency did provide case-by-case data on the most serious conviction and the date that this had occurred. It also released for each detainer case ICE's RC Threat Level — Level 1, 2, or 3 — which is based on convictions. In addition, it released information on whether or not the individual was classified as an aggravated felon. Following are the highlights from the analysis of these data.
The top 25 offenses ICE recorded as the most serious conviction for the individuals who were subject to a detainer is shown in Table 2. The much longer list covering all offenses is found in this detail table.
Table 2. The Most Serious Criminal Conviction for Individuals with ICE Detainers
| Top 25 Offenses Recorded* | Number | Percent | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| All detainers | 347,691 | 100.0% | |
| None | 165,769 | 47.7% | 1 |
| Driving Under Influence Liquor | 33,342 | 9.6% | 2 |
| Traffic Offense | 20,997 | 6.0% | 3 |
| Marijuana - Possession | 6,940 | 2.0% | 4 |
| Illegal Entry (INA SEC.101(a)(43)(O), 8USC1325 only) | 6,746 | 1.9% | 5 |
| Dangerous Drugs | 6,724 | 1.9% | 6 |
| Cocaine - Possession | 6,644 | 1.9% | 7 |
| Assault | 6,234 | 1.8% | 8 |
| Larceny | 4,891 | 1.4% | 9 |
| Cocaine - Sell | 4,314 | 1.2% | 10 |
| Robbery | 3,480 | 1.0% | 11 |
| Burglary | 3,414 | 1.0% | 12 |
| Marijuana - Sell | 3,335 | 1.0% | 13 |
| Public Order Crimes | 3,129 | 0.9% | 14 |
| Drug Possession | 2,773 | 0.8% | 15 |
| Disorderly Conduct | 2,758 | 0.8% | 16 |
| Drug Trafficking | 2,109 | 0.6% | 17 |
| Sex Assault | 2,100 | 0.6% | 18 |
| Amphetamine - Possession | 2,008 | 0.6% | 19 |
| Domestic Violence | 1,940 | 0.6% | 20 |
| Battery | 1,919 | 0.6% | 21 |
| Amphetamine - Sell | 1,826 | 0.5% | 22 |
| Trespassing | 1,647 | 0.5% | 23 |
| Fraud | 1,599 | 0.5% | 24 |
| Forgery | 1,539 | 0.4% | 25 |
Considered together, ICE data show that nearly two out of three detainers (65%) were issued for the following reasons — no charge of any kind, DWI, simple traffic offense, or marijuana possession. Next in frequency was illegal entry itself (1.9%).[6] If the list is limited to those offenses ICE classifies as Level 1, at most less than fifty thousand or 14 percent met this standard.[7]
Given the fact that many individuals included in these tables were already serving time in federal and state prisons at the time the detainer was placed [see Part I of this series], the low proportion who had any criminal conviction was quite unexpected.[8]
When the detainers are classified by the seriousness of the "RC Threat Level," the data show that only 23 percent of the total — fewer than one in four — were classified at Level 1, the most serious threat. According to ICE, Level 1 is restricted to non-citizens: "convicted of 'aggravated felonies,' as defined in § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes punishable by more than one year, commonly referred to as 'felonies'." This figure is larger than the 14 percent convicted of serious crimes since ICE also includes anyone convicted of two or more felonies in its Level 1 category, whatever their nature.
In nearly half of all cases the threat level recorded was "NA" — that is, the individual posed no threat since he or she had no criminal conviction.[9] See Figure 5 and Table 3.
| Table 3. Detainers by RC Threat Level (October 2011 - January 2013)
|  Figure 5. Detainers by RC Threat Level | ||||||||||||||||||
ICE Treats Minor Crimes As Serious Threats to Public Safety
TRAC's analysis turned up other equally troubling conditions. When the agency's threat levels based on convictions are tabulated against the most serious convictions, it turns out that minor violations can sometimes lead to the placement of an individual in the highest threat level category. This raises profound questions. Is ICE targeting the wrong individuals because the enforcement information it receives is flawed? Or are the formulas used by ICE in implementing its priorities assigning individuals incorrect threat levels?
Examples of the apparent anomalies can be seen in Table 4. This table lists the most common serious offenses that led the agency to place an individual in the highest threat category. Ranked eleventh among the most common offenses were simple traffic violations. Marijuana possession was the sixth most common. And in second place was DWI, driving while intoxicated. In each situation, the listed offense is the most serious conviction the individual had received.
| Most Serious Criminal Conviction | Number | Percent | Rank (top 100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Detainers** | 80,457 | 100% | |
| Cocaine - Sell | 4,314 | 5% | 1 |
| Driving Under Influence Liquor | 4,189 | 5% | 2 |
| Assault | 4,032 | 5% | 3 |
| Dangerous Drugs | 3,608 | 4% | 4 |
| Robbery | 3,361 | 4% | 5 |
| Marijuana - Possession | 3,360 | 4% | 6 |
| Marijuana - Sell | 3,334 | 4% | 7 |
| Cocaine - Possession | 3,063 | 4% | 8 |
| Burglary | 2,767 | 3% | 9 |
| Larceny | 2,522 | 3% | 10 |
| Traffic Offense | 2,270 | 3% | 11 |
| Drug Trafficking | 2,109 | 3% | 12 |
| Sex Assault | 2,008 | 2% | 13 |
| Amphetamine - Sell | 1,826 | 2% | 14 |
| Illegal Entry (INA SEC-101(a)(43)(O), 8USC1325 only) | 1,229 | 2% | 15 |
| Fraud | 1,208 | 2% | 16 |
| Weapon Offense | 1,199 | 1% | 17 |
| Smuggling Aliens | 1,181 | 1% | 18 |
| Forgery | 1,086 | 1% | 19 |
| Amphetamine - Possession | 1,039 | 1% | 20 |
| Heroin - Sell | 1,026 | 1% | 21 |
| Marijuana - Smuggle | 935 | 1% | 22 |
| Aggravated Assault - Weapon | 899 | 1% | 23 |
| Homicide | 884 | 1% | 24 |
| Cruelty Toward Wife | 788 | 1% | 25 |
| Marijuana | 776 | 1% | 26 |
| Cocaine - Smuggle | 734 | 1% | 27 |
| Narcotic Equip - Possession | 618 | 1% | 28 |
| Fraud - Impersonating | 617 | 1% | 29 |
| Lewd or Lascivious Acts with Minor | 597 | 1% | 30 |
| Sex Offense Against Child-Fondling | 555 | 1% | 31 |
| Possession Of Weapon | 546 | 1% | 32 |
| Fraud - False Statement | 516 | 1% | 33 |
| Flight To Avoid (prosecution, confinement, etc-) | 494 | 1% | 34 |
| Public Order Crimes | 491 | 1% | 35 |
| Disorderly Conduct | 483 | 1% | 36 |
| Resisting Officer | 483 | 1% | 37 |
| Drug Possession | 479 | 1% | 38 |
| Vehicle Theft | 476 | 1% | 39 |
| Rape - Strongarm | 450 | 1% | 40 |
| Kidnapping | 439 | 1% | 41 |
| Shoplifting | 423 | 1% | 42 |
| Battery | 410 | 1% | 43 |
| Sex Offense | 408 | 1% | 44 |
| Domestic Violence | 396 | 0% | 45 |
| Trespassing | 396 | 0% | 46 |
| Synthetic Narcotic - Sell | 389 | 0% | 47 |
| Cocaine | 374 | 0% | 48 |
| Cruelty Toward Child | 358 | 0% | 49 |
| Hit and Run | 357 | 0% | 50 |
| Carrying Concealed Weapon | 356 | 0% | 51 |
| Aggravated Assault - Family-Strongarm | 340 | 0% | 52 |
| Receive Stolen Property | 334 | 0% | 53 |
| Heroin - Possession | 315 | 0% | 54 |
| Stolen Property | 287 | 0% | 55 |
| Obstruct Police | 273 | 0% | 56 |
| Aggravated Assault - Non-family-Weapon | 254 | 0% | 57 |
| Burglary - Forced Entry-Residence | 252 | 0% | 58 |
| Statutory Rape - No Force | 236 | 0% | 59 |
| Illegal Re-Entry (INA SEC-101(a)(43)(O), 8USC1326 only) | 232 | 0% | 60 |
| False Imprisonment | 229 | 0% | 61 |
| Sex Assault - Carnal Abuse | 221 | 0% | 62 |
| Possession Forged (identify in comments) | 210 | 0% | 63 |
| Heroin - Smuggle | 205 | 0% | 64 |
| Synthetic Narcotic - Possession | 204 | 0% | 65 |
| Identity Theft | 200 | 0% | 66 |
| Threat Terroristic State Offenses | 200 | 0% | 67 |
| Failure To Appear | 199 | 0% | 68 |
| Carrying Prohibited Weapon | 195 | 0% | 69 |
| Molestation of Minor | 195 | 0% | 70 |
| Aggravated Assault - Non-family-Strongarm | 194 | 0% | 71 |
| Rape - Remarks | 190 | 0% | 72 |
| Damage Property | 181 | 0% | 73 |
| Firing Weapon | 180 | 0% | 74 |
| Immigration (Possess of Fraud- Immigration Docs) | 168 | 0% | 75 |
| Amphetamine | 167 | 0% | 76 |
| Simple Assault | 162 | 0% | 77 |
| Robbery - Street-Weapon | 160 | 0% | 78 |
| Unauthorized Use of Vehicle (includes joy riding) | 159 | 0% | 79 |
| Aggravated Assault - Gun | 158 | 0% | 80 |
| Sex Assault - Sodomy-Girl-Strongarm | 154 | 0% | 81 |
| Amphetamine - Manufacturing | 153 | 0% | 82 |
| Homicide-Negligent Manslaughter-Vehicle | 152 | 0% | 83 |
| Robbery - Street-Gun | 146 | 0% | 84 |
| Possession Stolen Property | 145 | 0% | 85 |
| Property Crimes | 136 | 0% | 86 |
| Crimes Against Person | 132 | 0% | 87 |
| Drugs - Health or Safety | 127 | 0% | 88 |
| Fraud - Illegal Use Credit Cards | 122 | 0% | 89 |
| Aggravated Assault - Family-Weapon | 119 | 0% | 90 |
| Robbery - Street-Strongarm | 119 | 0% | 91 |
| Driving Under Influence Drugs | 118 | 0% | 92 |
| Stolen Vehicle | 117 | 0% | 93 |
| Prostitution | 116 | 0% | 94 |
| Forgery Of (identify in comments) | 112 | 0% | 95 |
| Aggravated Assault - Police Officer-Strongarm | 108 | 0% | 96 |
| Counterfeiting | 99 | 0% | 97 |
| Carjacking-Armed | 96 | 0% | 98 |
| Obstructing Justice | 96 | 0% | 99 |
| Aggravated Assault - Non-family-Gun | 94 | 0% | 100 |
The new system, based on a combination of convictions rather than only the most serious one, is more complicated. TRAC therefore sought the detailed procedures now used by ICE to determine the RC threat levels. These detailed ICE implementation rules are contained in the document illustrated in Figure 6.
There are a number of interesting features of these operational rules:
- Aggravated felonies. Conviction for an "aggravated felony" places a person in the highest threat level under the Morton memorandum. There is a surprisingly large number of offenses in the operational rules (the right most column in Figure 6) treated as aggravated felonies that automatically place a person into Level 1. The offense categories are often broad and would appear to encompass offenses that don't necessarily qualify as "aggravated felonies." See the TRAC report discussing the definition of aggravated felonies. TRAC was able to examine the records concerning individuals who had been placed in the most serious threat level in order to determine whether or not ICE had also classified them as an aggravated felon. What we found was that for these individuals who were also classified as aggravated felons, the most serious charge recorded in the data was not limited to offenses on this list. Instead it included numerous minor crimes such as disorderly conduct, simple traffic violations, failure to appear, and illegal entry.
- Other Level 1 Rules. About half of the Level 1 offenders in the detainer data were individuals that ICE did not consider to be an aggravated felon. Here two felony convictions are required for an individual to be placed in the highest threat level.[10] Again, however, when the most serious convictions for these cases are tabulated, one again sees numerous minor offenses as previously shown in Table 4.
- Everything not a felony is treated as equivalent. While the Morton memo referenced above said that "[s]ome misdemeanors are relatively minor and do not warrant the same degree of focus as others," the rules themselves do not make these distinctions. In addition, the rules don't include any "escape valve" so that truly minor violations aren't elevated to a higher threat level. For example, take citations punishable for at most a small fine. Or consider individuals who send in their checks to pay for traffic tickets or for walking their dog without a leash that occur in jurisdictions that define these as criminal violations (for example, the federal government). These minor transgressions are treated the same as more serious misdemeanors. Any one of them in one's criminal history results in a Level 3 classification as the default, and three of them automatically elevate the individual to a Level 2 violator — equivalent to a person who committed manslaughter or made a bomb threat.
- Reliance on recorded sentence. The rules also consider any minor offense to be a potential felony, based solely on the information recorded on the sentence, without apparently any built-in checks to require further verification when the nature of the offense and the length of sentence appear inconsistent. For example, a simple traffic violation that resulted in one day of jail time, if misinterpreted as one year instead of one day, automatically is classed as a felony. Two minor offenses with questionable sentence information automatically moves an individual into the top threat level — on par with murderers and weapons traffickers.
When the Conviction Had Occurred
Because the date of the most serious conviction was included in the information TRAC received, we were able to divide the data into whether the most serious conviction had occurred before or after the detainer was placed and analyze these records separately.
Convictions after the detainer was placed. TRAC wanted to know just how often the most serious conviction occurred after the detainer was issued, and what was the level of seriousness of that offense. Convictions that occurred after the detainer was issued — presumably relating to the arrest that triggered the detainer — would be likely to be the most serious when it was either the first conviction, or it involved a particularly serious crime. In case serious offenses took longer to resolve we divided the data by when the detainer had been placed, in order to see if a larger proportion of serious offenses turned up when a year or more had elapsed since the arrest. (Results showed that this had not occurred.)
Table 5. Most Serious Conviction Occurs After Detainer Placed
| RC Threat Level | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| All | 38,008 | 100% |
| Level 1 | 7,741 | 20% |
| Level 2 | 8,243 | 22% |
| Level 3 | 22,024 | 58% |
The data so far provided by the agency do not allow us to answer an important question: how often are detainers issued for a recent minor offense when the individual had been convicted of a serious crime in the past? For this TRAC would need information about the crime which had resulted in the arrest giving rise to the detainer. Unfortunately ICE has chosen not to release this information.
Table 6. Most Serious Conviction Occurs Before Detainer Placed
| Number of Years Ago | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Total Convictions* | 104,422 | 100% |
| Less than 1 year ago | 19,602 | 19% |
| More than 1 year ago | 84,820 | 81% |
| More than 5 years ago | 50,787 | 49% |
| More than 10 years ago | 24,045 | 23% |
| More than 20 years ago | 4,154 | 4% |
Because ICE only released information on the most serious conviction, it is not possible to determine if that conviction was the only one or even the last one. But the data do show that it is common for the most serious conviction to have occurred many years prior to when ICE sought to take those individuals into custody and deport them.
Conclusion
As the old maxim says, actions speak louder than words. And in this case, the information about the nearly 350,000 detainers obtained and analyzed by TRAC present a reality entirely different from the one that the government has attempted to paint in its many official statements.
Footnotes [1] According to ICE, the FY2012 - FY2013 records include all detainers that were issued during this period, including those issued by these ICE offices and divisions: "Detention and Deportation (DDP), Fugitive Operations (FUG), Alternatives to Detention (ATD), Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Detained Docket Control (DDC), Non-Detained Docket Control (NDD), Violent Criminal Alien Section (VCS), Joint Criminal Alien Response Team (JCT), Juvenile (JUV), and Law Enforcement Area Response (LEA)). All 287(g) detainers were also included.
[2] The immigration "hold" is supposed to be limited to "48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond the time when the subject would otherwise been released from [...] custody" (see DHS Form I-247 and Figure 3).
[3] See, for example: Santa Clara County; San Francisco County; Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Newark; Chicago. See also: California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris' guidance on detainers and commentary by San Francisco district attorney George Gascón.
[4] According to the accompanying memorandum issued by ICE Director John Morton, these revisions were made to provide a better mechanism to "ensure that ICE's finite enforcement resources are dedicated, to the greatest extent possible, to individuals whose removal promotes public safety, national security, border security, and the integrity of the immigration system."
[5] TRAC has filed an administrative appeal contesting the failure to provide all of the data requested. The ICE appeals officer remanded the request back for reprocessing. However, the remand expressed no opinion and included no instructions on what about the agency's original response was deficient. TRAC is currently waiting for the results of this "reprocessing."
[6] Illegal re-entry was separately listed. Only 0.3 percent had this as their most serious charge.
[7] This figure includes all offenses ICE categorizes as a "Level 1" offense in its operational rules. Because TRAC did not have sentence information, broad categories like assault and larceny were all counted as Level 1 offenses, while ICE would exclude any of these where the sentence was less than one year. There were also a few offenses that ICE elevated to Level 1 based on their sentence which otherwise were classed by ICE as Level 2 or Level 3 offenses — the classification used by TRAC. All in all, while the 14 percent figure is not exact, it is likely higher than the actual number of "serious crimes" based upon ICE's definitions if full information had been available. For ICE's offense-by-offense classification rules, see Figure 6.
[8] For example, there are reportedly over 100,000 noncitizens serving sentences in state and federal prisons on any day (see sourcebook of criminal justice statistics). Because this statistic does not cover noncitizens serving sentences in local jails, it underestimates the actual number of individuals that ICE prison programs handle.
[9] When the same data are examined over time, the proportion showing any threat as well as the proportion in the Level 1 threat category both show slight declines. This could be simply a reporting artifact since classification is based upon convictions, and a greater proportion of charges may still be pending in more recent months.
[10] The operational rules require that there be two convictions classified as "Level 2" to move the individual into the most serious Level 1 category. There are a number of crimes listed that are classed as Level 2 if they have sentences of less than one year. Also, a Level 3 offense where the recorded sentence is one year or more is upgraded to Level 2, and two of these then rates elevation to Level 1.
[11] Because detainers are also placed on individuals who are currently serving a prison term to ensure that when the sentence is completed they are turned over to ICE rather than released into the community, we eliminated those records that contained an entry in a field labeled "projected release date." There were 44,735 records with projected release dates. Of these, 39,489 concerned convictions that occurred before the detainer was placed and were therefore eliminated from Table 6. This is presumably an undercount since ICE may not have recorded projected release dates for everyone who was in prison at the time.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Listen via @PRITheWorld: How Volunteers Keep Watch, Ease Isolation of Immigrant Detainees
Listen via @PRITheWorld: How Volunteers Keep Watch, Ease Isolation of Immigrant Detainees
via Amy Bracken and Public Radio International’s The World:
“It’s looking unlikely that Congress will take up immigration reform this fall. But the push is still on to put deportations and immigrant detention centers under the microscope. And some of those leading this effort are immigrants themselves—who’ve spent time in detention centers—and are organizing to support those still inside.” Read more here.
Listen via @PRITheWorld: How Volunteers Keep Watch, Ease Isolation of Immigrant Detainees
September 14, 2013
“It’s looking unlikely that Congress will take up immigration reform this fall. But the push is still on to put deportations and immigrant detention centers under the microscope. And some of those leading this effort are immigrants themselves—who’ve spent time in detention centers—and are organizing to support those still inside.” Read more here.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Friday, August 16, 2013
For Young Immigrants, Deferred Action Comes With Limits
For Young Immigrants, Deferred Action Comes With Limits
For Young Immigrants, Deferred Action Comes With Limits
A year ago today, the federal government started accepting applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants temporary legal status to immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children. Since then, 5,946 Massachusetts immigrants have applied. Meet some of them below. | Katherine AsuncionAge: 20Birthplace: Dominican Republic Hometown: Lynn Immigrated To The U.S.: 2003 Job: Development Director for the Student Immigrant Movement DACA Status: Approved December 6, 2012 |
| Katherine graduated with an associate’s degree in business from Marian Court College in Swampscott. These days, she works for the Student Immigrant Movement in Boston, advocating for immigration reform. She says she initially became an activist for her own personal benefit; she wanted to advocate for the DREAM Act. But now she says her work has taken on a life of its own. She’s fighting for the entire immigrant community, not just herself. Katherine says she doesn’t feel the current U.S. Senate immigration bill is fair. She thinks it spends too much money on border security. But she says the immigrant community has been fighting for so long that it needs some sort of relief. Her main concern is that it’s going to take too long to get citizenship, and in the waiting game people will fall out of the system or lose faith and return to their homeland. For Katherine, DACA isn’t the ideal solution; it’s only temporary. But she acknowledges it has fundamentally changed her life. | |
 | Jesus EncisoAge: 20Birthplace: Mexico Hometown: Marlborough Immigrated To The U.S.: 1999 Job: Waiter and student at Clark University in Worcester, where he studies engineering and architecture DACA Status: Applied August 30, 2012, but has yet to be be approved or denied |
| Jesus waits tables at Longfellow’s Wayside Inn in Sudbury. It’s a historic landmark, once owned by the inventor of the automobile, Henry Ford. Working at the oldest still-operating inn in the country is a point of a pride for him as a new immigrant. He’s been an employee there for more than a year, but he can’t legally work in the U.S. He applied using his tax ID number instead of a Social Security number. He says management never asked about his status and he never said anything. He says he understands that by talking to WBUR, his status with his employer is now public, but he says the need to tell his story transcends his fear. Jesus, unlike many others we interviewed for this story, says he always knew he was undocumented; it wasn’t a family secret because they didn’t come by airplane, on a visa. They entered the U.S. running across the Mexican border. | |
 | Rosmery Abigail HernandezAge: 19Birthplace: Honduras Hometown: Dorchester Job: Works at Chipotle in Watertown and studies at North Shore Community College studying education Immigrated To The U.S.: 2005 DACA Status: Approved December 21, 2012 |
| Abby, as she goes for short, spent the early years of her childhood in Honduras without her parents. She says her dad left to work in the U.S. before she turned 2; she couldn’t even recognize his face when they reconnected. Abby discovered she was undocumented in high school when she realized she didn’t have a Social Security number. She says she never told her friends because whenever her classes debated election politics, some of her classmates would insult undocumented immigrants, accuse them of stealing American jobs and assert that they should go back to where they came from. Abby sounds frustrated when she explains that her parents never told her she had entered the country illegally. When she was applying for DACA, she did more research on her status and discovered not only was she undocumented, but the country had already sent her a deportation letter. | |
 | Barerah MasoodAge: 29Birthplace: Pakistan Hometown: Norfolk Job: Works part-time at a convenience store owned by a family friend Immigrated To The U.S.: 1988 DACA Status: Applied September 27, 2012, but has yet to be approved or denied |
| Barerah’s father was getting a degree in economics at Boston University, so he was in the country on a student visa. She says her father brought the rest of the family with him; she was 5 at the time. After her dad graduated, he got an extension on the student visa. It eventually expired, but he overstayed and kept his family in the dark. Barerah says she didn’t discover she was undocumented until she wanted to apply for college. When she found out, she says she resented her dad. She questioned why he hadn’t bothered to straighten out the family’s legal status. Barerah eventually went on to study psychology at UMass Boston. She also has a master’s degree in education from Cambridge College. She wants to teach students with disabilities. She had plans to substitute teach in the Norfolk Public School system his fall, but she’s still waiting for a response to her DACA application. Barerah says she’s hopeful immigration reform will pass this time around, but she’s concerned with the current form of the bill, particularly the length of time it’ll take undocumented immigrants to obtain citizenship. | |
 | Xhulio UruciAge: 20Birthplace: Albania Hometown: Newton Jon: Student at UMass Amherst studying math Immigrated To The U.S.: 2000 DACA Status: Approved in December 2012 |
| Xhulio’s family immigrated from Albania and applied for political asylum when he was 7 years old. He says after years of waiting for legal protection his family’s request was denied. During his junior year of high school, the day before he was planning to compete in the national track and field finals, he found out he did not have legal status in the U.S. He remained undocumented for three years until he received DACA last December. Xhulio says he doesn’t think the Senate’s version of immigration reform is ideal. Nor does he think Congress will find the perfect remedy at this point in time. He feels conflicted about whether he can support a bill that could potentially help millions of undocumented people, even if it marginalizes others. | |
 | Filipe ZamborliniAge: 24Birthplace: Brazil Hometown: Everett Immigrated To The U.S.: 2001 Job: Bilingual senior assistant in the Office of state Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz DACA Status: Approved September 4, 2012 |
| Filipe lives with his mom, his grandmother and his cat in an apartment in Everett. He went to Boston Latin Academy and expected after graduation to enroll in a four-year college. It wasn’t that easy, though, when he discovered he was undocumented. He eventually started college at UMass Boston, but he says he got himself deep into debt. He misread the tuition costs. He thought it was $12,000 per year, signed up for classes and then realized it was $12,000 per semester. He dropped out before completing his second year because he couldn’t afford to stay. He had taken a $26,000 loan from Bank of America his first year. In theory, it was supposed to be an annual recurring loan, but when the economy tanked, he couldn’t renew it. To make matters worse, his mom lost her job. So they had no money to pay the tuition bill. He’s planning to start classes at the Harvard Extension School this fall, with the hopes of majoring in government and economics. While Filipe plans to start college again, his younger brother is living an entirely different life. He got into trouble and was deported back to Brazil. Filipe says his biggest concern with immigration reform is how the bill will treat mixed status families, like his own. | |
Sunday, July 14, 2013
US Reveals It Held Hundreds of Immigrant Kids in Adult Detention
US Reveals It Held Hundreds of Immigrant Kids in Adult Detention
WASHINGTON — Newly released data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) suggests hundreds of immigrant children, unaccompanied and undocumented in the United States, have been held in adult detention centers, contrary to federal regulations.
The revelation comes as immigration authorities are grappling with an unprecedented rise in the number of youths illegally migrating to the U.S. from Latin America.
DHS detained at least 1,366 children in adult immigration facilities between 2008 and 2012, according to data released by the National Immigrant Justice Center this week.
The Chicago-based advocacy group obtained the data after a two-year legal battle with DHS.
The legal settlement required DHS to release data for just 30 of the approximately 250 immigration detention facilities whose services it contracts.
The National Immigrant Justice Center says the limited reporting suggests the number of children locked up with adults could be much higher.
"It’s a startling revelation,” said the center’s executive director, Mary Meg McCarthy. "These children were isolated from access to legal counsel and may have been denied protections under U.S. law. It’s beyond time for Congress to step in and hold DHS accountable for an immigration detention system that has gotten too big and out of control."
The findings come as Congress is drafting new legislation to manage the U.S. immigration system, including the rights afforded to undocumented foreigners being detained.
Currently, federal regulations require DHS to refer children under the age of 18 to the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within 72 hours of their apprehension. ORR is specifically tasked to work with unaccompanied immigrant children, placing the kids in a network of shelters offering mental and physical support, translators, recreational activities and family reunification services.
However, the DHS data shows more than 1,300 children were detained in adult facilities for more than three days. Across 13 states, approximately 390 undocumented immigrant minors were held for more than a month in county jails, detention centers and private prisons run by the Corrections Corporation of America. Of that number, 15 were held in adult detention facilities for more than three months, and four were detained for between 1,000 and 3,600 days.
Pushed from home
The data may speak to a larger issue. The number of immigrant children entering the U.S. by themselves is soaring, although border crossings overall have declined sharply in the last decade.
It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how many foreigners - adults and children - are entering the U.S. illegally because the people coming in don’t announce their arrival. The best measure is data on apprehensions and detentions, which are also imprecise because of the many bureaucracies involved.
But ORR says one thing is clear: More kids are coming to the U.S. alone than ever before.
On average, ORR serves between 7,000 and 8,000 children annually. That number soared to 13,625 children in fiscal year 2012. By the end of this year, the office is expecting to have served 23,000 children.
And those are only the children referred to ORR by immigration authorities. The actual number may be much higher, as suggested by Customs and Border Patrol, which says its agents apprehended 31,029 juveniles in fiscal year 2012. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another DHS branch, has not released its numbers.
Strained services
The influx has been so great that ORR has had to set up temporary emergency shelters to house children in gymnasiums and at an air force base.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement says the kids, most of them boys over 14 years old, are coming primarily from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. The ORR says gangs, drug cartels and poverty are pushing them from home.
Representatives from the Women’s Refugee Commission interviewed children at the emergency facilities last June and found kids who said that while in Border Patrol custody, they sometimes slept on crowded cement floors in facilities with no showers, where the lights stayed on 24 hours a day.
Jennifer Podkul, senior program officer at the Women’s Refugee Commission, said ORR was doing “the best it could” considering the circumstances and has since increased its number of beds and closed the emergency shelters.
But she said the strained situation her group was able to monitor raises questions about the situation it wasn’t able to monitor - children in adult immigration detention centers.
“I think this information was a surprise to people, and there’s still a lot of information we don’t know,” she said. “Why were they there? Were they misclassified or improperly screened? Was there a backup during a period when a lot of kids were coming in?”
Room for improvement
Podkul said the newly released DHS data is worrisome because it suggests the government has not been completely successful in improving the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant minors. As part of the 2002 Homeland Security Act, the U.S. government separated the duties of immigration authorities who were once tasked with apprehending and prosecuting kids, and with taking care of them.
Podkul acknowledged the government’s efforts to improve the situation for immigrant children, but she said more work is needed.
“The government has to be more careful with children - they need to make sure they’re being held in the appropriate facilities,” she said. “Even if it’s a border patrol station, they still need to make sure there’s special conditions."
DHS did not respond to requests for comment. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said in a statement it takes seriously its responsibility to care for unaccompanied immigrant children in the U.S. illegally.
“It is against ICE policy to detain an unaccompanied minor for more than 72 hours and in no instance will an unaccompanied minor be housed in an ICE detention facility while awaiting transfer to [Health and Human Services],” the statement said. “Unaccompanied minors are carefully kept in staging facilities away from the general population and minors are only held in ICE custody when accompanied by their parents in a facility designed to house families.”
The revelation comes as immigration authorities are grappling with an unprecedented rise in the number of youths illegally migrating to the U.S. from Latin America.
The Chicago-based advocacy group obtained the data after a two-year legal battle with DHS.
The legal settlement required DHS to release data for just 30 of the approximately 250 immigration detention facilities whose services it contracts.
The National Immigrant Justice Center says the limited reporting suggests the number of children locked up with adults could be much higher.
"It’s a startling revelation,” said the center’s executive director, Mary Meg McCarthy. "These children were isolated from access to legal counsel and may have been denied protections under U.S. law. It’s beyond time for Congress to step in and hold DHS accountable for an immigration detention system that has gotten too big and out of control."
The findings come as Congress is drafting new legislation to manage the U.S. immigration system, including the rights afforded to undocumented foreigners being detained.
However, the DHS data shows more than 1,300 children were detained in adult facilities for more than three days. Across 13 states, approximately 390 undocumented immigrant minors were held for more than a month in county jails, detention centers and private prisons run by the Corrections Corporation of America. Of that number, 15 were held in adult detention facilities for more than three months, and four were detained for between 1,000 and 3,600 days.
Pushed from home
The data may speak to a larger issue. The number of immigrant children entering the U.S. by themselves is soaring, although border crossings overall have declined sharply in the last decade.
It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how many foreigners - adults and children - are entering the U.S. illegally because the people coming in don’t announce their arrival. The best measure is data on apprehensions and detentions, which are also imprecise because of the many bureaucracies involved.
But ORR says one thing is clear: More kids are coming to the U.S. alone than ever before.
On average, ORR serves between 7,000 and 8,000 children annually. That number soared to 13,625 children in fiscal year 2012. By the end of this year, the office is expecting to have served 23,000 children.
And those are only the children referred to ORR by immigration authorities. The actual number may be much higher, as suggested by Customs and Border Patrol, which says its agents apprehended 31,029 juveniles in fiscal year 2012. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another DHS branch, has not released its numbers.
Strained services
The influx has been so great that ORR has had to set up temporary emergency shelters to house children in gymnasiums and at an air force base.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement says the kids, most of them boys over 14 years old, are coming primarily from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. The ORR says gangs, drug cartels and poverty are pushing them from home.
Representatives from the Women’s Refugee Commission interviewed children at the emergency facilities last June and found kids who said that while in Border Patrol custody, they sometimes slept on crowded cement floors in facilities with no showers, where the lights stayed on 24 hours a day.
Jennifer Podkul, senior program officer at the Women’s Refugee Commission, said ORR was doing “the best it could” considering the circumstances and has since increased its number of beds and closed the emergency shelters.
But she said the strained situation her group was able to monitor raises questions about the situation it wasn’t able to monitor - children in adult immigration detention centers.
“I think this information was a surprise to people, and there’s still a lot of information we don’t know,” she said. “Why were they there? Were they misclassified or improperly screened? Was there a backup during a period when a lot of kids were coming in?”
Room for improvement
Podkul said the newly released DHS data is worrisome because it suggests the government has not been completely successful in improving the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant minors. As part of the 2002 Homeland Security Act, the U.S. government separated the duties of immigration authorities who were once tasked with apprehending and prosecuting kids, and with taking care of them.
Podkul acknowledged the government’s efforts to improve the situation for immigrant children, but she said more work is needed.
“The government has to be more careful with children - they need to make sure they’re being held in the appropriate facilities,” she said. “Even if it’s a border patrol station, they still need to make sure there’s special conditions."
DHS did not respond to requests for comment. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said in a statement it takes seriously its responsibility to care for unaccompanied immigrant children in the U.S. illegally.
“It is against ICE policy to detain an unaccompanied minor for more than 72 hours and in no instance will an unaccompanied minor be housed in an ICE detention facility while awaiting transfer to [Health and Human Services],” the statement said. “Unaccompanied minors are carefully kept in staging facilities away from the general population and minors are only held in ICE custody when accompanied by their parents in a facility designed to house families.”
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Voices from Detention: Elder Virgilio Gomez López
Congress currently requires 34,000 immigrants be detained daily. The 34,000 bed mandate, essentially a quota system, exacerbates the inhumanity of detention. Most immigrants are incarcerated in appalling conditions, with no knowledge of when or if they will be released. True immigration reform should eliminate the bed mandate. Call your member of Congress and ask them to eliminate the arbitrary 34,000 detention bed quota: (202) 224-3121
El Congreso exige actualmente que 34.000 inmigrantes estén detenidos cada día. El mandato de 34.000 camas de detención, esencialmente un sistema de cuotas, agrava la falta de humanidad en el sistema de detención. La mayoría de los inmigrantes están encarcelados en condiciones deplorables, sin ningún conocimiento de cuándo o si van a ser liberados. Una reforma migratoria verdadera deberia eliminar esta cuota de camas.
Llame a su Congresista y pídale que eliminen la cuota arbitraria de 34.000 camas de detención (202) 224-3121
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)