Secure Communities

Secure Communities
Name	Secure Communities
Established	2008
Jurisdiction	United States
Agency	U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; FBI; Department of Homeland Security
Status	Program (implemented 2008–2014; revived variations thereafter)

Secure Communities Secure Communities was a United States immigration enforcement program initiated in 2008 that coordinated fingerprint-sharing between local law enforcement and federal agencies to identify removable noncitizens. The initiative involved local sheriff offices, police departments, state departments of corrections, and federal entities such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security, and influenced debates in national forums including the United States Congress and state legislatures.

Background and Overview

Secure Communities emerged from interagency cooperation among federal entities including the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the Department of Homeland Security's ICE, and components of the United States Department of Justice. The program linked fingerprint data collected during arrests or booking to Department of Homeland Security databases and the FBI’s criminal indices to flag individuals with potential immigration detainers. Major implementation phases involved coordination with county jails in jurisdictions such as Los Angeles County, Maricopa County, Cook County, and Harris County, and prompted responses from officials including mayors, governors, and state attorneys general.

Policy and Implementation

Policy design drew upon prior programs like the 287(g) program and relied on technology from the FBI’s IAFIS and databases managed by Homeland Security Investigations and ICE. Implementation required memoranda of agreement with county authorities and integration with local sheriff offices, municipal police systems, and state corrections departments. Key policy decisions were shaped by actors such as the United States Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and congressional committees including the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Major cities and counties negotiated participation or exemption through local ordinances in places like San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Austin, and Seattle.

Controversies and Criticism

Critics included civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, as well as local advocacy groups in immigrant communities across California, Texas, Arizona, and New York. Contentions centered on racial profiling allegations raised by scholars from institutions like Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and UC Berkeley, and public officials in jurisdictions such as Cook County and Harris County. Lawsuits and campaigns referenced constitutional provisions debated in courts including the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Media coverage appeared in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and was amplified by advocacy from organizations such as National Immigration Forum and Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Legal Challenges and Litigation

Litigation challenged detainer practices and alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and state statutes in forums including the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Supreme Court. Landmark cases involved filings by the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Counsel, and state attorneys general from jurisdictions like California and Massachusetts. Decisions and injunctions referenced precedents from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and administrative guidance from the Department of Homeland Security. Congressional oversight hearings featured testimony from ICE directors, Department of Homeland Security secretaries, and sheriffs from counties such as Maricopa County.

Impact and Outcomes

Evaluations by academic centers like the Migration Policy Institute, research teams at University of Chicago, Princeton University, and reports from think tanks such as the Brookings Institution assessed effects on arrest rates, public safety metrics, and trust between immigrant communities and police in municipalities like New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, and Phoenix. Studies measured changes in reporting of crimes to local police, economic behavior in immigrant communities, and enforcement outcomes tracked by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and ICE case data. Policy shifts in 2014 and subsequent years led to program suspension, replacement by alternatives such as Priority Enforcement Program, and later administrative adjustments under successive presidential administrations.

Comparative Programs and Alternatives

Secure Communities was compared to other enforcement frameworks including the 287(g) program, the Priority Enforcement Program, state-level measures like Arizona SB 1070, municipal policies such as sanctuary city ordinances in San Francisco and Chicago, and foreign practices in countries like Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia concerning biometrics and interoperability of criminal and immigration databases. Alternatives proposed by scholars from Columbia University, Stanford University, and policy groups such as the American Immigration Council emphasized community policing models, statutory reform in the United States Congress, and oversight mechanisms involving state legislatures and judicial review.

Category:Immigration to the United States