Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:38 pm
Time: 10:38 pm
Results for criminal aliens
7 results foundAuthor: Jeszeck, Charles A.: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that as of fiscal year 2009 the total alien--non-U.S.-citizen--population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status. Some aliens have been convicted and incarcerated (criminal aliens). The federal government bears these incarceration costs for federal prisons and reimburses states and localities for portions of their costs through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). GAO was asked to update its April and May 2005 reports that contained information on criminal aliens. This report addresses (1) the number and nationalities of incarcerated criminal aliens; (2) the types of offenses for which criminal aliens were arrested and convicted; and (3) the costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens and the extent to which DOJ's methodology for reimbursing states and localities for incarcerating criminal aliens is current and relevant. GAO analyzed federal and SCAAP incarceration and cost data of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2010, and conviction and cost data from five states that account for about 70 percent of the SCAAP criminal alien population in 2008. GAO analyzed a random sample of 1,000 criminal aliens to estimate arrest information due to the large volume of arrests and offenses. GAO also estimated selected costs to incarcerate criminal aliens nationwide using The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003. The time period covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since GAO last reported on these issues in 2005. Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004. Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were arrested at least once for an immigration offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the criminal aliens sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2009 (the most recently available data) were convicted of immigration and drug-related offenses. About 40 percent of individuals convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism-related investigations were aliens. SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in selected state prison systems in Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas were convicted of various offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most recently available data at the time of GAO's analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens incarcerated in four of these states was for drug-related offenses. Homicide resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in the fifth state--New York--in fiscal year 2008. GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursing states and localities in 2011 to help ensure that it is current and relevant. DOJ developed its reimbursement methodology using analysis conducted by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2000 that was based on 1997 data. Best practices in cost estimating and assessment of programs call for new data to be continuously collected so it is always relevant and current. During the course of its review, GAO raised questions about the relevancy of the methodology. Thus, DOJ developed plans to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP data from 2009 and would like to establish a 3-year update cycle to review the methodology in the future. Doing so could provide additional assurance that DOJ reimburses states and localities for such costs consistent with current trends. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS and DOJ had no written comments to include in the report. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-11-187: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf Shelf Number: 121479 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCriminal AliensHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensImmigrantsImmigrants and CrimeImmigration |
Author: Gardner, Trevor, II Title: The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program Summary: The goal of the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is to improve safety by promoting federal-local partnerships to target serious criminal offenders for deportation. Indeed, the U.S. Congress has made clear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “should have no greater immigration enforcement priority than to remove deportable aliens with serious criminal histories from the United States, …” The Warren Institute’s analysis of arrest data pursuant to an ICE-local partnership in Irving, Texas demonstrates that ICE is not following Congress’ mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories. This study also shows that immediately after Irving, Texas law enforcement had 24-hour access (via telephone and video teleconference) to ICE in the local jail, discretionary arrests of Hispanics for petty offenses — particularly minor traffic offenses — rose dramatically. This report probes the marked rise in low-level arrests of Hispanics. Specifically, the report examines whether there was an increase in lawless behavior in the Hispanic community in Irving or whether there was a change in local policing priorities. The Warren Institute’s study of arrest data finds strong evidence to support claims that Irving police engaged in racial profiling of Hispanics in order to filter them through the CAP screening system. Details: Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2009. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/policybrief_irving_FINAL.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/policybrief_irving_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 123082 Keywords: Criminal AliensDeportationHispanicsIllegal AliensImmigrants (U.S.)Racial Profiling |
Author: U.S. Immigration and CustomsEnforcement Title: Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens. Strategic Plan Summary: Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities) is working with ICE senior leadership and offices, as well as the broader law enforcement community, to better identify criminal aliens, prioritize enforcement actions on those posing the greatest threat to public safety, and transform the entire criminal alien enforcement process. Through improved technology, continual data analysis, and timely information sharing with a broad range of law enforcement agency (LEA) partners, we are helping to protect communities across the country. This document outlines our goals, objectives, and our strategic approach to accomplishing them. Details: Wshington, DC: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2009. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://epic.org/privacy/secure_communities/securecommunitiesstrategicplan09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://epic.org/privacy/secure_communities/securecommunitiesstrategicplan09.pdf Shelf Number: 128336 Keywords: Border PatrolBorder SecurityCriminal AliensCustoms EnforcementHomeland Security (U.S.)Illegal MigrantsImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: Understanding the Potential Impact of Executive Action on Immigration Enforcement Summary: While much of the attention to the Obama administration's announcement of executive actions on immigration in November 2014 has focused on key deferred action programs, two changes that have not faced legal challenge are in the process of being implemented and may substantially affect the U.S. immigration enforcement system. These changes include the adoption by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of new policy guidance on which categories of unauthorized immigrants and other potentially removable noncitizens are priorities for enforcement, and the replacement of the controversial Secure Communities information-sharing program with a new, more tailored Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). The new policy guidance, which builds on previous memoranda published by the Obama administration in 2010 and 2011, further targets enforcement to noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes, are threats to public safety, are recent illegal entrants, or have violated recent deportation orders. MPI estimates that about 13 percent of unauthorized immigrants in the United States would be considered enforcement priorities under these policies, compared to 27 percent under the 2010-11 enforcement guidelines. The net effect of this new guidance will likely be a reduction in deportations from within the interior of the United States as DHS detention and deportation resources are increasingly allocated to more explicitly defined priorities. By comparing the new enforcement priorities to earlier DHS removal data, this report estimates that the 2014 policy guidance, if strictly adhered to, is likely to reduce deportations from within the United States by about 25,000 cases annually - bringing interior removals below the 100,000 mark. Removals at the U.S.-Mexico border remain a top priority under the 2014 guidelines, so falling interior removals may be offset to some extent by increases at the border. Taking the enforcement focus off settled unauthorized immigrants who do not meet the November 2014 enforcement priorities would effectively offer a degree of protection to the vast majority - 87 percent - of unauthorized immigrants now residing in the United States, thus affecting a substantially larger share of this population than the announced deferred action programs (9.6 million compared to as many as 5.2 million unauthorized immigrants). This report analyzes how many unauthorized immigrants fall within each of the new priority categories and how implementation of these priorities could affect the number of deportations from the United States, as well as what the termination of Secure Communities and launch of PEP could mean for federal cooperation with state and local authorities on immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement Shelf Number: 136235 Keywords: Criminal Aliens Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration EnforcementUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Kandel, William A. Title: Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief Summary: The prominence of immigration enforcement issues during the 2016 Presidential elections and publicity surrounding crimes committed by some unauthorized aliens, have reignited the debate over immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. One homicide case - the July 2, 2015 slaying of a woman on a San Francisco pier by a reported unauthorized alien with a criminal and deportation history - was particularly noteworthy, because the law enforcement agency in question reportedly did not honor an immigration detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the individual who committed the crime. At the end of 2014, noncitizens accounted for 11.2% of the 209,561 individuals incarcerated in federal prisons, 3.5% of the 1,268,740 individuals incarcerated in state prisons, and 4.6% of the entire incarcerated population. In 2014, noncitizens represented 7.0% of the U.S. population. All of these proportions are slightly understated because they do not include figures for California which did not report its non-citizen incarcerated population. Incarceration data indicate that drug offenders accounted for 50% of all federal offenders in federal prison at the end of FY2013. Forty-six percent of noncitizen federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses at the end of FY2013. Although immigration offenders represented almost 12% of all federal offenders incarcerated at the end of 2012, they represented 43% of all federal noncitizen offenders. Combined, drug and immigration offenses represented almost 90% of all noncitizen federal offenses at the end of FY2013. Published data on the state and local prisoners by offense type and citizenship status are not available. While immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, efforts have continually been made to use the potential 'force multipliers' offered by local law enforcement. In 1996 legislation was enacted allowing the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement jurisdictions that would permit it to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement agents. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this program, commonly referred to as the Section 287(g) program, and others involving federal and state and local cooperation, took on new urgency. ICE's Section 287(g) program permits the agency to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to trained state and local law enforcement officers, under federal supervision, to identify criminal aliens. ICE also operates the Criminal Alien Program, along with Secure Communities/Interoperability to identify, detain and remove criminal and other removable aliens. While funding for these programs increased over the years since their inception, it has declined in recent years. In recent years, some jurisdictions have expressly defined or limited their roles and the activities of their employees regarding immigration enforcement. Critics contend that such policies within so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions can lead to tragic outcomes (such as the one described above) and can ultimately encourage illegal immigration. Supporters maintain that they are necessary because of resource and legal constraints, the need to avoid the disruption of critical municipal services, and human rights considerations. Congress may choose to consider several issues, including whether the potentially positive impacts on public safety of state and local involvement in immigration enforcement outweigh the potentially negative impacts on both law enforcement resource utilization and community relations within such jurisdictions; and whether increasing law enforcement funding or tying the provision of certain federal grants to greater cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies - or a mix of both approaches - would yield the greater cooperation oponents are seeking. The 114th Congress is considering proposals that would prohibit jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict its law enforcement agencies from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens or collecting information on the immigration or citizenship status of individuals from receiving certain federal grants. These proposals include H.R. 3009, H.R. 3002, S. 80, S. 1764, S. 2193 and S. 3100. The House passed H.R. 3009 on July 23, 2015. Similarly, amendments adopted during the House Committee on Appropriations markup of the FY2016 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and the House consideration of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2578) would prohibit federal funds from going to jurisdictions that restrict their law enforcement agents from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens. The former would prohibit Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, while the latter would do so for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance grant funds. S.Rept. 114-66 to accompany H.R. 2578 contains no language supporting such restrictions. On October 20, 2015, the Senate also failed to pass a cloture motion to consider S. 2146, which would make sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for certain federal grants; grant jurisdictions that honor immigration detainers the authority to carry them out and limit their liability in doing so; and increase penalties for previously removed aliens who attempt to reenter the United States without authorization. The Senate reportedly plans to consider two measures, S. 3100 and S. 2193, that would restrict federal funding to cities that decline to honor detainers; and increase penalties (i.e., prison sentence) for migrants who illegally renter the country. S. 3100 would withhold a range of federal grants for public works, economic development, planning, administrative expenses, training, research, and technical assistance from such sanctuary jurisdictions. S. 2193 would increase maximum prison terms for unauthorized aliens by setting a five-year maximum sentence for unauthorized aliens with felony convictions caught two or more times, and a 10-year maximum sentence on unauthorized aliens caught reentering three times. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: R44118: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf Shelf Number: 146675 Keywords: Criminal AliensIllegal MigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary Jurisdictions |
Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: From the Mid-1990s to the Present Summary: States and localities can have significant interest in the manner and extent to which federal officials enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regarding the exclusion and removal of unauthorized aliens. Some states and localities, concerned that federal enforcement disrupts families and communities, or infringes upon human rights, have adopted 'sanctuary' policies limiting their cooperation in federal efforts. Other states and localities, in contrast, concerned about the costs of providing benefits or services to unauthorized aliens, or such aliens settling in their communities, have adopted measures to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining within their jurisdiction. In some cases, such states or localities have also sued to compel federal officials to enforce the immigration laws, or to compensate them for costs associated with unauthorized migration. This report provides an overview of challenges by states to federal officials' alleged failure to enforce the INA or other provisions of immigration law. It begins by discussing (1) the lawsuits filed by six states in the mid-1990s; (2) Arizona's counterclaims to the federal government's suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070; and (3) Mississippi's challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. It then describes the challenge brought by over 25 states or state officials in December 2014 to the Obama Administration's proposal to expand DACA and create a similar program for unauthorized aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs) (commonly known as DAPA)." Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf Shelf Number: 146677 Keywords: Border SecurityCriminal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary Cities |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General Title: An Assessment of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fugitive Operations Teams Summary: To bring integrity to the immigration process, in February 2002, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service established the National Fugitive Operations Program under the auspices of the Office of Detention and Removal Operations. When the Department of Homeland Security was formed in March 2003, the office became a part of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The purpose of the National Fugitive Operations Program is to identify, locate, apprehend, and remove fugitive aliens from the United States. Fugitive aliens are individuals who have unexecuted final orders of removal from the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The orders require the aliens to be removed from this country. The ultimate goal of the program is to eliminate the backlog of fugitive aliens. As of August 2006, the Office of Detention and Removal Operations estimated there were 623,292 fugitive aliens in the United States. Since 2003, the office allocated more than $204 million to deploy 52 Fugitive Operations Teams. As of October 2006, 50 teams are operational and apprehending fugitive aliens in various cities nationwide. Following are the results of our review: - Fugitive alien apprehensions reported by the Office of Detention and Removal Operations did not accurately reflect the teams' activities; - The fugitive alien backlog increased despite the teams' efforts; - The teams' effectiveness was hampered by insufficient detention capacity, limitations of an immigration database, and inadequate working space; - The removal rate of fugitive aliens apprehended by the teams could not be determined; - The teams performed duties unrelated to fugitive operations, contrary to Office of Detention and Removal Operations policy; - Despite hiring obstacles, progress has been made in staffing the teams; - The teams have effective partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies; and - The teams have basic law enforcement training. We are making seven recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to address our concerns. The Office of Detention and Removal Operations concurs with all seven recommendations and has taken steps to address them. Details: Washington, DC: The Office of the Inspector General, 2007. 69p. Source: Internet Resource; OIG-07-34: Accessed June 26, 2018 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_07-34_Mar07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_07-34_Mar07.pdf Shelf Number: 150704 Keywords: Border Control Criminal AliensCustoms Enforcement Fugitive Aliens Fugitives from Justice Homeland Security Immigration Enforcement |