Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />1. ICE must reinforce its commitment to prioritize those immigrants who have been convicted of <br />egregious felony offenses, or who truly pose a threat to the community, by issuing strict <br />guidelines that include: <br />Secure Communities should not be focused on individuals convicted of non - felony <br />offenses. <br />Secure Communities screening should take place upon conviction, not during the pre - <br />conviction stage. <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 />clarify that the local jail is not authorized to detain the subject for a period exceeding 48 hours, <br />excluding weekends and holidays. <br />3. ICE should be required to issue reports to Congress on a regular basis, with statistics on the <br />crimes for which identified non - citizens are arrested, the disposition of each underlying criminal <br />case, and the nationality and ethnicity of identified non - citizens. Jurisdictions participating in <br />Secure Communities should be required to report their arrest and identification statistics to ICE <br />supervisors for oversight and management purposes. <br />4. Congress should request that the GAO or another neutral agency conduct an audit of the Secure <br />Communities program. The report should contain an assessment of Secure Communities goals <br />and objectives, performance measures, supervision and oversight, data tracking, and reporting <br />mechanisms. It is important that officials overseeing the Secure Communities program review <br />the GAO report on 287(g) and make every effort to ensure that this vast new national program <br />be properly defined, documented, evaluated, and supervised. Given the documented <br />shortcomings of the 287(g) and CAP programs, mechanisms should be put into place on the <br />front end, and not delayed until another damaging report is issued on the failures of Secure <br />Communities. <br />5. The public should receive consistent information about the operation of Secure Communities. <br />Public outreach, community meetings, and information- sharing should be a central element of <br />program implementation. <br />6. All jurisdictions participating in Secure Communities should receive training on civil rights and <br />illegal racial or other profiling. <br />7. DHS must create and implement a strong complaint and redress mechanism for individuals who <br />believe they have been wrongly arrested, detained, or otherwise mistreated under the Secure <br />Communities program. <br />8. Before expanding Secure Communities to a jurisdiction, DHS should consider the direct and <br />indirect effects that the program could have on public safety and community policing in that <br />jurisdiction. Secure Communities should also ensure that any jurisdiction has the option to <br />refuse to participate in the program, and that local authorities be given instructions for opting <br />out. <br />15 <br />