Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:04 pm
Time: 11:04 pm
Results for immigration and customs enforcement
7 results foundAuthor: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Border Security: Actions Needed to Strengthen Performance Management and Planning for Expansion of DHS's Visa Security Program Summary: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) manages the Visa Security Program (VSP), which provides an additional layer of review to the visa adjudication process; however, VSP agents are not consistently providing required training to consular officers. ICE implemented the Pre-Adjudicated Threat Recognition and Intelligence Operations Team (PATRIOT) in fiscal year 2014. PATRIOT screens 100 percent of nonimmigrant visa applications at VSP posts against U.S. databases, and U.S.-based analysts manually vet applications with potential matches to derogatory information. VSP agents at post then make recommendations to Department of State (State) consular officers on whether to refuse a visa. In fiscal year 2016, VSP screened over 2.1 million visa applications, and recommended over 8,000 visa refusals. In addition, VSP agents and VSP-funded locally employed staff dedicated approximately 43 percent of their work hours in fiscal year 2016 to non-VSP activities-such as assisting ICE investigations not directly related to visas. ICE increased the percentage of VSP posts providing quarterly training from 30 percent in fiscal year 2014 to 79 percent in fiscal year 2016. However, some trainings are not targeted to the specific post and do not address identified threats to the visa process, as required. Ensuring that VSP agents provide required training would help ensure consular officers have information that could assist them in adjudicating visas. ICE developed objectives and performance measures for VSP, but its measures are not outcome-based and limit the agency's ability to assess the effectiveness of VSP. As of fiscal year 2017, none of VSP's 19 established performance measures are outcome-based. For example, ICE measures its activities, such as number of visa refusals VSP agents recommended, rather than the outcomes of those recommendations. ICE officials stated that measuring VSP's outcomes is difficult due to the qualitative nature of the program's benefits; however, solely tracking activities, such as number of recommended refusals, does not allow ICE to evaluate VSP's effectiveness. Developing and implementing outcome-based performance measures, consistent with best practices for performance management, would help ICE determine whether VSP is achieving its objectives. ICE evaluated options for VSP expansion but its site selection process did not incorporate PATRIOT data or options for remote operations that, for example, use U.S.-based VSP agents. ICE has previously utilized PATRIOT to gather data to estimate program capacity, but ICE officials stated that they do not use PATRIOT to collect data on the potential number of ineligible visa applicants and workload for posts under consideration for VSP expansion. By incorporating PATRIOT data on posts under consideration into its site selection process, ICE could more effectively manage human capital and other resources. Further, ICE has implemented remote VSP operations in some posts, but does not consider such approaches during its annual site selection process. ICE documentation stated that ICE could successfully screen and vet applicants remotely through VSP, however the officials' preferred approach is to deploy agents to posts overseas. Incorporating remote options for VSP operations could help identify opportunities to further expand VSP and better utilize resources. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-314: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690865.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690732.pdf Shelf Number: 149678 Keywords: Border SecurityHomeland SecurityImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration EnforcementVisas |
Author: Bier, David J. Title: U.S. Citizens Targeted by ICE: U.S. Citizens Targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas Summary: Texas law SB 4 imposes jail time on local police who fail to detain anyone whom federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Data from Travis County, Texas, show that ICE targets large numbers of U.S. citizens. From October 2005 to August 2017, 814 targets of ICE detainers in Travis County-3.3 percent of all requests-claimed U.S. citizenship and presented officers with a Social Security number (SSN). ICE subsequently canceled or declined to execute about a quarter of those detainer requests. Based on statements from ICE officials, the best explanation for not executing these detainers is that ICE targeted at least 228 U.S. citizens in the county before canceling or declining to execute those detainers. SB 4 will likely increase the detention of U.S. citizens for supposed violations of immigration law by preventing local police from releasing them. Applying the rate of wrongful detainers in Travis County to all detainers in the state of Texas from 2006 to 2017 implies that ICE wrongfully placed detainers on at least 3,506 U.S. citizens statewide. Other evidence shows that ICE regularly releases U.S. citizens after it executes a detainer, meaning that the true number of U.S. citizens initially targeted is likely even higher than that estimate. The fact that ICE often discovers its own mistakes only mitigates the harm inflicted on U.S. citizens wrongfully detained under the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants-and does not protect these jurisdictions from lawsuits under SB 4. Local law enforcement in Texas needs the flexibility to sort through these citizenship claims without the threat of jail time imposed by SB 4. Details: Washington, CA: CATO Institute, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf Shelf Number: 151327 Keywords: Customs EnforcementIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration Policy |
Author: TRAC Title: Detention of Criminal Aliens: What Has Congress Bought? Summary: Over the last five years, Congress poured $24 billion dollars into the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), upping the overall funding for this agency by 67 percent. The largest as well as the fastest growing segment of these appropriated dollars went to ICE's Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) office whose budget more than doubled (increasing 104 percent). Under the law, the DRO is charged with finding, detaining and removing non-citizens who do not have a legal basis for continuing to reside in this country. To determine what these greatly expanded funding levels accomplished the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) has analyzed hundreds of thousands of ICE records about every detainee held by the government for the period from FY 2005 through the first quarter of FY 2010. The analysis had two goals. The first was to determine the actual policies that were followed from FY 2005 to 2009, mostly under President Bush. The second was to see what if any changes have occurred since last May when ICE's new head, John T. Morton, took over the reins of the agency. This report is the second in a series on ICE enforcement policies. A previous report examined detention transfer practices. By contrast, this report focuses on the changing composition of detainees. A third TRAC report will examine the role of detention on the ICE goal of deporting and removing aliens from this country. Details: Syracuse, New York: Transnational Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Reports, 2010. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2018 at: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/224/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/224/ Shelf Number: 153339 Keywords: Criminal ImmigrantsDepartment of Homeland SecurityDetention and Removal OperationsIllegal ImmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration DetaineesMigrationNon-Citizens |
Author: McKee, Erin Title: Crimmigration in Oregon: Protecting the Rights of Noncitizen Defendants Summary: Several studies show that immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens and rates of violent crime in metropolitan areas fall as the immigrant population rises. Despite this, the specter of the "criminal alien" continues to haunt the popular imagination, aided by lurid media coverage highlighting the few cases of serious or violent crimes committed by immigrants. The Trump administration has greatly expanded the groups of people targeted for removal from the U.S., while severely limiting legal immigration. Enforcement actions are taking place against a broad group of noncitizens, including those who have committed only minor crimes or even no crimes at all. WHAT IS CRIMMIGRATION? Crimmigration broadly refers to the criminalization of migration, increased immigration detention and use of private prisons, the prison-to-deportation pipeline, and a deportation process described by one immigration judge as "what amount to death penalty cases heard in traffic court settings." Viewed narrowly, crimmigration refers to the immediate and long-term immigration consequences of criminal convictions. WHAT CAN OREGON DO TO PROTECT NONCITIZEN OREGONIANS AND THEIR FAMILIES? Crimmigration Report Infographic What Oregon Legislators Can Do.jpg We have developed a report as a resource for legislators and others that provides analysis of the legal steps that can be taken that will help to protect noncitizen Oregonians and their families. Click here to read the report. Legislators can: 1. Create Pre-Plea Diversion. Allow qualified defendants to enter pre-trial diversion or deferred adjudication without a guilty or no-contest plea. 2. Allow prior convictions to fit current law. Oregon has already reduced maximum sentences for Class A misdemeanors from 365 days to 364 and should allow this to apply retroactively. 3. Define the prosecutor's duty. Require prosecutors to consider avoiding adverse immigration consequences in plea negotiations. 4. Improve the effectiveness of the court's admonishment. Warn every defendant much earlier in the legal process that if they are a noncitizen that a conviction may have serious immigration consequences so they have time to seek appropriate help. 5. Prohibit disclosure of immigration status in court. No one should be forced to disclose their immigration status in court because it creates unnecessary risk of immigration enforcement and discrimination. 6. Define defense counsel's duty. Require defense counsel to ensure clients understand potential outcomes of their cases and the immigration consequences so they can make the best decisions for themselves and their families. 7. Expand post-conviction relief. Allow defendants to apply for relief within a reasonable period of discovering they received bad advice about the immigration consequences of a plea or conviction. Oregon can also: Crimmigration Report Infographic What Else Oregon Can Do.jpg 1. Uphold the "sanctuary state" law. State and local employees should be reminded of their duty to uphold the law by not using public resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation is being present in the U.S. contrary to federal immigration law and should receive training about this. Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors should investigate violations of the "sanctuary state" law and prosecute offenders for official misconduct. Information about violations and training employees have received should be public. 2. End "broken windows" policing targeting low-level offenders. Stop bringing people to the courts for minor offenses where they become vulnerable to aggressive ICE enforcement. 3. Limit information sharing. Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, probation offices, and others should create policies that make it clear to staff where contacting ICE would go beyond the scope of their duties and punish violations. 4. End local jail contracts with ICE. Oregon’s jails should immediately stop contracting with ICE to detain noncitizens so that counties no longer profit from deportation. Details: Portland, Oregon: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: January 9, 2019 at: https://ojrc.info/crimmigration-in-oregon/ Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5b353c3503ce6435b6aa1026/1530215484282/Crimmigration+Report+June+2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154021 Keywords: Broken Windows PolicingCriminal AlienCrimmigrationDeportationImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementImmigration DetentionImmigration StatusLaw EnforcementMigrationNative-Born Citizens NoncitizensPre-Trial DiversionSanctuary StateViolent Crime |
Author: National Juvenile Justice Network Title: Supporting Immigrant Youth Caught in the Crosshairs of the Justice System Summary: Executive Summary Out of the estimated 11.1 million noncitizen immigrants living in America today, approximately one million are children under 18 years old. Many of these youth have come to this country fleeing violence and oppression, carry complex emotional burdens from trauma, and face basic language barriers. As national anti-immigrant rhetoric has escalated to the point of associating immigrants with animals and infestation and equating immigrant youth with gang members, these youthful immigrants have often become caught in the crosshairs of the justice system. Rather than being supported to develop into successful adults, immigrant youth are more often being targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation. As immigrant youth engage with the school and youth justice systems in this country, it is incumbent upon us to treat these youth - as we aspire to treat all youth in the United States - equitably, with dignity, and in a way that supports positive youth development and the rehabilitative goals of the youth justice system. Supporting immigrant youth has become increasingly more difficult, however, as federal, state, and local jurisdictions have adopted laws and policies that are threatening to immigrant youth and their families and fail to humanely support them. These include policies that promote local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, facilitate the deportation of immigrant youth and families, fail to protect the confidentiality of young people's school and justice records, increase harm to immigrant youth involved in the justice system, and fail to provide trauma informed, culturally and linguistically competent services for immigrant youth. While some of these policies negatively impact all youth, they can have profound consequences for immigrant youth, including higher risk of detention and the possibility of deportation. All these policies further serve to traumatize and instill fear in immigrant youth, impeding their ability to follow through on the services that will lead them on the path to positive youth development. Recommendations NJJN makes the following recommendations to support policies that uplift all families and further best practices for positive youth development for all youth, regardless of immigration status. 1) Do not entangle local and state law enforcement, youth justice, and school officials with federal immigration enforcement and encourage laws and policies that support immigrant youth. 2) Do not use gang databases and, where used, do not share them with federal authorities. 3) Safeguard students with policies that prohibit federal immigration authorities from entering schools, require warrants or other court documents to review student records, and discourage the use of school resource officers for the handling routine disciplinary matters. 4) Protect the confidentiality of all youth in the justice system, including immigrant youth. 5) Avoid detaining youth, including immigrant youth. 6) Use an immigration lens when reviewing current and proposed youth justice policies. Consider the possibility that children and/or adults that care for them may be immigrants and take actions that support their healthy development, rather than further traumatizing or harming them. 7) Ensure youth in the juvenile justice system have access to defense counsel that understand the immigration consequences of juvenile justice system involvement and, where necessary, access to immigration attorneys. Details: Washington, DC: 2018. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://www.njjn.org/our-work/supporting-immigrant-youth-caught-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-justice-system Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Supporting%20Immigrant%20Youth,%20NJJN%20Policy%20Platform,%20August%20%202018.pdf Shelf Number: 154225 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant YouthImmigrantsImmigration and Customs EnforcementJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenilesMigrantsRefugees |
Author: Camarota, Steven A. Title: Deportation vs. the Cost of Letting Illegal Immigrants Stay Summary: The findings of this analysis show that the average cost of a deportation is much smaller than the net fiscal drain created by the average illegal immigrant. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported the average deportation cost as $10,854 in FY 2016. In FY 2012, ICE removed 71 percent more aliens with a similar budget, creating an average inflation-adjusted cost of $5,915. This compares to an average lifetime net fiscal drain (taxes paid minus services used) of $65,292 for each illegal immigrant, excluding their descendants. This net figure is based on fiscal estimates of immigrants by education level from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS). The total fiscal drain for the entire illegal population is estimated at $746.3 billion. Of course, simply because deportation is much less costly than allowing illegal immigrants to stay does not settle the policy questions surrounding illegal immigration as there are many factors to consider. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2019 at: https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/deportation-vs-stay-costs.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://cis.org/Report/Deportation-vs-Cost-Letting-Illegal-Immigrants-Stay Shelf Number: 156199 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigration Immigration and Customs Enforcement |
Author: Secor, David Title: A Better Way: Community-Based Programming as an Alternative to Immigrant Incarceration Summary: Human rights norms and international law demand that immigrants benefit from a presumption of liberty during case adjudication. The use of immigration detention has been repeatedly proven inefficient, ineffective, and at odds with human welfare and dignity. Throughout the world, governments and non-governmental organizations are operating a growing variety of alternatives to detention. Evidence-based studies consistently prove community-based programs to be safer than a detention-based approach, vastly less expensive, and far more effective at ensuring compliance with government-imposed requirements. Most importantly, community-based alternatives offer a framework for refugee and migrant processing that is welcoming and allows families and communities to remain together. Instead of pursuing alternatives, the United States has dramatically expanded its reliance on immigration detention in recent decades. Prior to the 1980s, the United States government rarely jailed individuals for alleged violations of the civil immigration code. This changed in the late 1980s, and the use of detention increased significantly after the government authorized the indefinite detention of Haitian asylum seekers at Guantanamo Bay in 1991, claiming a need to control the movement of arriving refugees and migrants. Using many of the same structures that were fueling mass incarceration of communities of color across America, the United States started locking up immigrants at unprecedented levels. The immigration detention system quickly metastasized, fueled by profit and fear. Today it is a sprawling network of wasteful prisons operated by for-profit companies, county jails, and a small number of processing centers owned by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that are interchangeable from jails in structure and practice.5 The number of individuals locked in immigration detention skyrocketed from an average of 7,000 per day in 1994 to more than 50,000 in 2019. The Trump administration is demanding even more funds to open more immigrant jails and expand those already in operation, beyond spending levels approved by Congress. Human rights violations are rampant throughout United States immigration jails. Those who leave the system carry psychological and physical scars. Asylum seekers and immigrants should be welcomed to the United States, not greeted by a jail cell. A transformative approach to migration management, developed in reliance on evidence-based analysis and comparative models, could support immigrants and their families in a manner that invests in all communities. Details: Chicago, Illinois: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2019. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2019 at: https://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-files/no-content-type/2019-04/A-Better-Way-report-April2019-FINAL-full.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.immigrantjustice.org/research-items/report-better-way-community-based-programming-alternative-immigrant-incarceration Shelf Number: 156523 Keywords: Asylum SeekersCommunity-Based ProgramsEvidence-Based ApproachHuman RightsHuman WelfareImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration and Customs EnforcementMigrantsRefugee |