Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br />ICE has stated that Secure Communities is focused on dangerous "Level 1" criminals, but there is <br />concern about whether or not such prioritization is taking place. A November 2009 ICE press release <br />announced that, since its inception, Secure Communities had identified more than 111,000 criminal <br />aliens in local custody, of which more than 11,000 were charged with or convicted of Level 1 crimes, <br />while more than 100,000 had been convicted of Level 2 and 3 crimes. The number of detainers on Level <br />1 crimes is far exceeded by detainers on Level 2 and 3 crimes. Furthermore, Secure Communities <br />identifies immigrants charged with criminal offenses in addition to those with criminal convictions. <br />Obstacles to community policing. Unlike the 287(g) program, Secure Communities does not require an <br />MOA between ICE and the local jail, sheriff, or police department. Nonetheless, there are still concerns <br />about local police being seen as immigration agents. If ICE maintains a presence —even a technological <br />presence —in a local jail, the public will likely associate the local law- enforcement agency with <br />immigration enforcement. <br />Unnecessary or Prolonged Detention. The existence of a Secure Community detainer may limit an <br />individual's ability to access a lawyer, fight criminal charges, or get out of jail on bail. <br />Profiling and pretextual arrests. While Secure Communities is a technological identification program <br />through which all persons arrested are fingerprinted and checked against the various databases, there is <br />a concern that police officers working in areas that have Secure Communities in their local jails may <br />have an incentive, or at least the ability, to make arrests based on race or ethnicity, or to make <br />pretextual arrests of persons they suspect to be in violation of immigration laws, in order to have them <br />run through immigration databases once they are jailed. <br />Lack of complaint mechanisms. Given the wide range of concerns about Secure Communities, it is <br />essential that there be a complaint or redress procedure for individuals who believe they have been <br />erroneously identified by DHS databases or who believe a DHS detainer has been issued in error. <br />Currently there is no clear complaint procedure for persons who believe they have been victims of an <br />error. <br />Lack of Oversight and Transparency. Various reports have found that ICE has an uneven track record in <br />terms of supervising its local partnerships. As with other programs, there are concerns about the level <br />of oversight and transparency associated with Secure Communities. <br />Lack of Data. Muchmore data about Secure Communities and the individuals it identifies is necessary. <br />Without accurate data, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how Secure Communities is being <br />implemented or how effective it is. <br />Recommendations <br />In light of what is known about Secure Communities —and the experience that immigration attorneys, <br />civil- rights organizations, and other experts have had with similar ICE programs —IPC offers the following <br />policy recommendations. <br />1. ICE must reinforce its commitment to prioritize those immigrants who have been convicted of <br />egregious felony offenses, orwho truly pose a threat to the community. <br />2. DHS should clarify that an immigration detainer is not the equivalent of a criminal arrest warrant <br />or criminal detainer, and is simply a non - mandatory request that police maintain custody of an <br />individual for a maximum of 48 hours to facilitate DHS's picking that person up. DHS should <br />4 <br />