DOCSLIB.ORG

Secure Communities Monthly Statistics Through August 31, 2012 IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Secure Communities Monthly Statistics Through August 31, 2012 IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Secure Communities Monthly Statistics through August 31, 2012 IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Statistics Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Metrics 3. Monthly Outcome Metrics 4. Outcome Metrics by State 5. Outcome Metrics by AOR 6. Outcome Metrics by County 7. Frequently Asked Questions about Data 8. Interoperability Data Definitions 1. Executive Summary Secure Communities’ use of IDENT/IAFIS interoperability produced over 43,271 alien IDENT matches in August of FY2012 compared to over 32,330 alien IDENT matches in August of FY2011. Since Secure Communities’ use of IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability was first activated in Harris County, TX, on October 27, 2008, ICE has removed over 220,322 aliens and over 61,348 Level 1 convicted criminal aliens after identification through use of IDENT/IAFIS interoperability. There were 43,271 alien IDENT matches in August 2012 compared to 43,612 alien IDENT matches in July 2012. In August 2012, SC observed 13,938 LESC Level 1 matches compared to 13,435 LESC Level 1 matches in July 2012. 7,688 aliens identified through use of IDENT/IAFIS interoperability were removed from the country in August 2012. Of these, 2,299 removals were Level 1 convicted criminal aliens. IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Report 1/55 2. Metrics • 5% of all Interoperability transmissions have resulted in an alien IDENT match since 10/27/2008. • 22% of all alien IDENT matches have resulted in the identification of an alien charged with or convicted of an aggravated felony (LESC L1) since 10/27/2008. • 78% of all alien IDENT matches have resulted in the identification of an alien charged with or convicted of a crime other than an aggravated felony (LESC L2/3) since 10/27/2008. FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 YTD Cumulative Submissions Total 828,119 3,376,754 6,920,061 8,766,215 19,891,149 LESC L1 12,785 40,216 70,971 115,620 239,592 Alien IDENT LESC L2/3 82,879 207,950 277,999 279,461 848,289 Matches* Total 95,664 248,166 348,970 395,081 1,087,881 Convicted Criminals L1 3,409 14,319 21,021 22,599 61,348 Convicted Criminals L2 1,579 6,369 15,583 15,372 38,903 Convicted Criminals L3 5,705 15,689 23,123 21,296 65,813 Removals and ICE Fugitives 1,2 294 1,513 2,375 1,980 6,162 Returns** Prior Removals and Returns1,3 2,426 9,010 13,638 11,632 36,706 EWIs, Visa Violators and Overstays1 951 2,607 4,156 3,676 11,390 Total 14,364 49,507 79,896 76,555 220,322 Jurisdictions Deployed 88 570 937 1,479 3,074 * Aliens who are charged with or convicted of a Level 1 or Level2/3 offense as determined by the LESC during the referral include duplicate matches for aliens ** Aliens are classified by level based on conviction information available to ICE. L1‐3 are level 1‐3 convicted criminal aliens. Removals include Returns. Returns include Voluntary Returns, Voluntary Departures and Withdrawals under Docket Control. Non‐Detained Expedited Removals are not included because this data is included in Customs and Border Protection removals. 1A case cannot be a Fugitive and a Prior Removal in this dataset based on the current methodology being used. The ICE Priority levels prioritize cases based on ICE Fugitive status first, and then the remaining cases based on Prior Removals and then Entered Without Inspection, Visa Violators and Overstays. 2ICE Fugitives are aliens who have failed to leave the United States following the issuance of a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion. 3Prior Removals and Returns are defined as those aliens who have had a previous removal case or confirmed return entered in DHS systems. IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Report 2/55 3. Monthly Outcome Metrics Interoperability Statistics: Monthly Statistics (From October 27, 2008 through August 31, 2012) Alien IDENT Matches* Removals and Returns** Prior EWI, Visa Total Removal Violators Jurisdictions Convicted Convicted Convicted ICE and and Month Deployed Submissions LESC L1 LESC L2/3 Total Criminals L1 Criminals L2 Criminals L3 Fugitives1,2 Returns1,3 Overstays1 Total Oct‐08 1 920 8 60 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nov‐08 7 11,930 84 1,062 1,146 10 5 26 0 12 3 56 Dec‐08 14 17,044 102 1,812 1,914 48 22 81 3 25 20 199 Jan‐09 31 33,852 291 3,329 3,620 108 77 212 4 59 31 491 Feb‐09 47 54,506 655 5,178 5,833 201 110 439 12 155 77 994 Mar‐09 48 72,726 1,180 7,963 9,143 226 136 526 14 178 66 1,146 Apr‐09 48 75,981 1,192 8,257 9,449 267 123 586 32 235 92 1,335 May‐09 50 80,276 1,463 9,038 10,501 302 122 518 52 211 108 1,313 Jun‐09 70 99,087 1,750 10,283 12,033 452 212 752 30 309 114 1,869 Jul‐09 77 107,037 1,765 10,113 11,878 507 233 842 53 390 119 2,144 Aug‐09 80 120,947 1,908 11,358 13,266 514 228 778 36 382 168 2,106 Sep‐09 88 153,813 2,387 14,426 16,813 774 311 945 58 470 153 2,711 Oct‐09 92 162,550 2,514 14,634 17,148 910 407 1,116 68 420 164 3,085 Nov‐09 105 171,089 2,372 15,405 17,777 849 361 1,032 55 354 153 2,804 Dec‐09 108 182,283 2,579 13,822 16,401 956 390 1,252 76 403 146 3,223 Jan‐10 116 202,002 2,634 13,112 15,746 962 404 1,118 79 394 134 3,091 Feb‐10 118 195,029 2,655 12,141 14,796 953 441 1,268 79 467 150 3,358 Mar‐10 135 240,437 3,461 14,730 18,191 1,199 516 1,480 102 606 175 4,078 Apr‐10 169 280,178 3,679 17,107 20,786 1,062 512 1,281 171 1,036 252 4,314 May‐10 197 318,175 3,826 19,666 23,492 1,244 532 1,330 164 1,010 263 4,543 Jun‐10 402 330,654 3,810 19,001 22,811 1,563 686 1,417 176 1,039 275 5,156 Jul‐10 481 370,518 4,021 20,784 24,805 1,371 646 1,387 147 1,022 247 4,820 Aug‐10 567 456,445 4,319 23,573 27,892 1,595 718 1,403 189 1,098 317 5,320 Sep‐10 658 467,394 4,346 23,975 28,321 1,655 756 1,605 207 1,161 331 5,715 Oct‐10 745 479,763 3,961 24,649 28,610 1,646 1,036 1,691 183 835 263 5,654 Nov‐10 792 448,199 3,495 22,322 25,817 1,579 1,074 1,791 185 871 246 5,746 Dec‐10 891 463,760 3,616 22,279 25,895 1,589 1,255 1,913 189 964 302 6,212 Jan‐11 998 525,305 3,517 23,495 27,012 1,618 1,210 1,849 172 869 281 5,999 Feb‐11 1,067 497,052 3,607 22,264 25,871 1,584 1,330 1,841 152 1,081 347 6,335 Mar‐11 1,143 606,442 6,948 23,338 30,286 1,932 1,561 2,291 207 1,231 405 7,627 Apr‐11 1,253 593,711 7,842 20,986 28,828 1,710 1,351 1,997 198 1,211 387 6,854 May‐11 1,315 643,208 8,322 22,911 31,233 1,865 1,346 2,014 222 1,295 419 7,161 Jun‐11 1,419 647,678 7,024 23,133 30,157 1,856 1,409 1,999 199 1,369 384 7,216 Jul‐11 1,502 670,584 7,214 25,061 32,275 1,662 1,189 1,755 207 1,169 363 6,345 Aug‐11 1,508 690,990 7,849 24,481 32,330 1,957 1,420 2,045 254 1,459 403 7,538 Sep‐11 1,595 653,369 7,576 23,080 30,656 2,023 1,402 1,937 207 1,284 356 7,209 Oct‐11 1,595 659,484 7,416 22,754 30,170 1,828 1,352 1,848 181 1,014 298 6,521 Nov‐11 1,766 617,219 7,390 22,257 29,647 1,971 1,421 1,828 188 948 257 6,613 Dec‐11 2,027 619,521 7,513 22,256 29,769 1,995 1,379 1,861 175 1,108 332 6,850 Jan‐12 2,187 706,655 8,169 23,876 32,045 1,877 1,285 1,812 154 926 286 6,340 Feb‐12 2,304 868,131 9,484 23,743 33,227 1,989 1,319 1,942 177 838 306 6,571 Mar‐12 2,504 795,976 11,257 24,624 35,881 2,083 1,481 2,093 163 981 330 7,131 Apr‐12 2,731 782,931 11,024 24,500 35,524 2,072 1,339 1,900 170 981 431 6,893 May‐12 3,071 892,162 12,839 27,684 40,523 2,363 1,439 2,142 207 1,225 441 7,817 Jun‐12 3,074 913,346 13,155 28,257 41,412 2,036 1,415 1,995 186 1,207 345 7,184 Jul‐12 3,074 946,137 13,435 30,177 43,612 2,086 1,374 1,878 178 1,119 312 6,947 Aug‐12 3,074 964,653 13,938 29,333 43,271 2,299 1,568 1,997 201 1,285 338 7,688 Total 3,074 19,891,149 239,592 848,289 1,087,881 61,348 38,903 65,813 6,162 36,706 11,390 220,322 * Aliens who are charged with or convicted of a Level 1 or Level2/3 offense as determined by the LESC during the referral include duplicate matches for aliens ** Aliens are classified by level based on conviction information available to ICE.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Secure Communities: a Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens Strategic Plan
    Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens Strategic Plan July 21, 2009 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICEFOIA.10.131.000023 Message from the Assistant Secretary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to protecting national security and upholding public safety by targeting criminal networks and terrorist organizations that seek to exploit vulnerabilities in our immigration system, in our financial networks, along our border, at federal facilities and elsewhere in order to do harm to the United States. As a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agency, ICE fully supports the Department’s goal of protecting our nation from dangerous people. Under Secretary Napolitano's guidance and leadership, ICE looks forward to leveraging the Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities) program to enhance collaboration among U.S. law enforcement agencies to protect the people of the United States from criminal aliens that pose the greatest threat to our communities. The Secure Communities program is improving information sharing and promoting stronger partnerships between federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement agencies. By enhancing the exchange of information among law enforcement agencies and others, the Secure Communities program advances the ICE mission to enforce immigration and customs laws, protect federal buildings and other key assets, and provide law enforcement support in times of national emergency. John Morton Assistant Secretary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICEFOIA.10.131.000024 Message from the Acting Director I am proud to present the ICE Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities) updated Strategic Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secure Communities Program: Unanswered Questions and Continuing Concerns
    IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER SPECIAL REPORT AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL THE SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS By Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (Updated) NOVEMBER 2011 THE SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS UPDATED NOVEMBER 2011 MICHELE WASLIN, PH.D. ABOUT SPECIAL REPORTS ON IMMIGRATION The Immigration Policy Center’s Special Reports are our most in‐depth publication, providing detailed analyses of special topics in U.S. immigration policy. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michele Waslin, Ph.D., is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center. ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy in U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policymakers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion‐makers, and the media. IPC is a non‐partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org and our blog at www.immigrationimpact.com. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What is Secure Communities? Secure Communities is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program designed to identify immigrants in U.S. jails who are deportable under immigration law. Under Secure Communities, participating jails submit arrestees’ fingerprints not only to criminal databases, but to immigration databases as well, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to information on individuals held in jails.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J
    Marquette Law Review Volume 100 Article 8 Issue 2 Winter 2016 A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J. Pita Loor Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Immigration Law Commons Repository Citation Karen J. Pita Loor, A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience, 100 Marq. L. Rev. 565 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol100/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized editor of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 38800-mqt_100-2 Sheet No. 140 Side A 02/22/2017 09:25:38 LOOR-P.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/16/17 12:32 PM A STUDY ON IMMIGRANT ACTIVISM, SECURE COMMUNITIES, AND RAWLSIAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE KAREN J. PITA LOOR ABSTRACT This Article explores the immigrant acts of protest during the Obama presidency in opposition to the Secure Communities (SCOMM) immigration enforcement program through the lens of philosopher John Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience and posits that this immigrant resistance contributed to that administration’s dismantling the federal program by progressively moving localities, and eventually whole states, to cease cooperation with SCOMM. The controversial SCOMM program is one of the most powerful tools of immigration enforcement in the new millennium because it transforms any contact with state and local law enforcement into a potential immigration investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexican Immigrants Face Threats to Civil Rights and Increased Social Hostility
    Mexican Immigrants Face Threats to Civil Rights and Increased Social Hostility 1 Mexican Immigrants Face Threats to Civil Rights and Increased Social Hostility David Scott FitzGerald Gustavo López Angela Y. McClean Center for Comparative Immigration Studies University of California, San Diego1 1 The authors thank Doreen Hsu for her research assistance and S. Deborah Kang for her suggestions. 2 Primera edición: 28 de febrero de 2019 DR © 2019 Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos Periférico Sur 3469 Col. San Jerónimo Lídice Magdalena Contreras, Ciudad de México DR © 2019 University of California, San Diego Center for Comparative Immigration Studies 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, San Diego, California ISBN en trámite 3 Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 What are civil rights? ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Profile of Mexican immigrants in the United States ................................................................................................. 7 Unauthorized migration ............................................................................................................................................ 9 COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ITS FAILURES ................................................................. 10 Deadlock in the Bush administration .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Task Force on Secure Communities Findings and Recommendations
    HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON SECURE COMMUNITIES FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SEPTEMBER 2011 1 Task Force on Secure Communities Chuck Wexler (Chair), Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum Bo Cooper, Partner, Berry Appleman & Leiden L.L.P. Adrian Garcia, Sheriff, Harris County, Texas Douglas Gillespie, Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Robert Glaves, Executive Director, The Chicago Bar Foundation Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director, American Immigration Council Andrew Lauland, Homeland Security Advisor to Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley Laura Lichter, Partner, Lichter & Associates, P.C. David A. Martin, Professor of Law, University of Virginia Charles Ramsey, Commissioner of Police, Philadelphia Lupe Valdez, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas Roberto Villaseñor, Chief of Police, Tucson, Arizona Wendy Wayne, Director, Immigration Impact Unit, Committee for Public Counsel Services Sister Rosemary Welsh, Executive Director, Casa de Misericordia and Director, Mercy Ministries Outreach 2 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 Findings and Recommendations………………………………………………………………...…..9 I. Misunderstandings Regarding the Secure Communities Program and the Role of Local Law Enforcement Agencies ..............................................................10 II. Perceived Inconsistencies Between Secure Communities’ Stated Goals and Outcomes ...16 III. Minor Traffic Offenses and Misdemeanors
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Enforcement in the United States the Rise of a Formidable Machinery
    IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES THE RISE OF A FORMIDABLE MACHINERY DORIS MEISSNER, DONALD M. KERWIN, MUZAFFAR CHISHTI, AND CLAIRE BERGERON REPORT IN BRIEF THE PILLARS OF ENFORCEMENT Border enforcement Workplace enforcement Visa controls & travel The intersection of the criminal justice screening system & immigration enforcement Information & interoperability of Detention & removal of data systems noncitizens US IMMIGRATION POLICY PROGRAM IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES The Rise of a Formidable Machinery REPORT IN BRIEF Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, and Claire Bergeron January 2013 Acknowledgments The immigration enforcement policy landscape has been a central theme in the work of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) since its founding in 2001. We are indebted to many individuals at MPI — past and present — who have collaborated in that work by contributing ideas, research, debate, and expertise that often draw on deep professional experience in various capacities in immigration enforcement and related fields. For this report, we want to acknowledge and thank a newer colleague, Faye Hipsman, our research assistant and a “graduate” of MPI’s intern program, for providing essential, extensive support. Faye has worked tirelessly and creatively in making numerous contributions to the text and look and feel of the report. Finally, we are especially grateful for the generosity of our funders who have supported MPI and, in particular, MPI’s Immigration Policy Program, with general operating support. The continuing encouragement and interest we receive from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations have been essential to this project and so many others at MPI.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Enforces Immigration Laws?
    Immigration Enforcement Actors Who enforces immigration laws? Before 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was primarily tasked with carrying out the enforcement of immigration laws—from welcoming immigrants to the United States, to deciding on their deportation cases. In 2003, the INS was disbanded and the various tasks that it used to carry out were divided among several different agencies. Current- ly, these are some of the key federal agencies that work in tandem with one another, and oftentimes, with state and local law enforcement, to enforce U.S. immigration laws. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ICE is the primary agency tasked with enforcing immigration laws within the U.S. It runs dozens of enforcement pro- grams and facilities to further the detection, detention, and deportation of non-citizens. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) CBP is primarily responsible for regu- lating immigration and trade at the borders and ports of entry, including airports across the country. The agency also enforces immigration laws within 100 miles of the border. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) USCIS mainly decides on applications for immigration status, such as green cards. It also administers hte E-Verify program that monitors the employment of undocumented individuals by businesses. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) The Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) is a body of judges who administer the immigration court system, interpret U.S. immigration laws, and con- duct removal proceedings. There are 60 courts in 27 states and two in U.S. territories. Ap- peals from decisions of the immigration courts are handled by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from Secure Communities
    FEAR AND THE SAFETY NET: EVIDENCE FROM SECURE COMMUNITIES Marcella Alsan Stanford Medical School, BREAD and NBER Crystal S. Yang Harvard Law School and NBER. June, 2018 Working Paper No. 18-015 Fear and the Safety Net: Evidence from Secure Communities∗ Marcella Alsany Crystal S. Yangz First Draft: January 2018 This Draft: June 2018 Abstract This paper explores the impact of fear on the incomplete take-up of safety net programs in the United States. We exploit changes in deportation fear due to the roll-out and intensity of Secure Communities (SC), an immigration enforcement program that empowers the federal government to check the immigration status of anyone arrested by local police, leading to the forcible removal of approximately 380,000 immigrants. We estimate the spillover effect of SC on the take-up of federal means-tested programs by Hispanic citizens. Though not at personal risk of deportation, Hispanic citizens may fear their participation could expose non-citizens in their network to immigration authorities. We find significant declines in SNAP and ACA enrollment, particularly among mixed-citizenship status households and in areas where deportation fear is highest. The response is muted for Hispanic households residing in sanctuary cities. Our results are most consistent with network effects that perpetuate fear rather than lack of benefit information or stigma. JEL Codes: I14, I3, K00 ∗We thank seminar participants at UC Berkeley Haas, UC Berkeley Demography, University of Colorado Boul- der, Stanford, UCSD, UCLA, UC Davis, University of British Columbia, UC Irvine, Pomona, Princeton, Harvard, University of Texas Austin, the American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting, Junior Criminal Law Roundtable, and NBER Summer Institute (scheduled) for many helpful comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Over the Wall
    OVER THE WALL Law, Human Development, and the Migrant Communities Michael C. Hagerty of the Arizona Borderlands Arizona’s struggle with undocumented migration exists within the context of a Notre Dame Law School massive intra-continental human migration. A broad and complex range of Program on Law and Human Development economic factors have led millions of Mexicans and Central Americans north to the United States in search of the “American dream.” April 2012 w Notre Dame Program on Law and Human Development Student Research Papers # 2012-1 Program on Law and Human Development Notre Dame Law School's Program on Law and Human Development provided guidance and support for this report; generous funding came from the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. The author remains solely responsible for the substantive content. Permission is granted to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use, provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and a full citation on the first page. The proper form for citing Research Papers in this series is: Author, Title (Notre Dame Program on Law and Human Development Student Research Papers #, Year). ISSN (online): 2165-1477 © Michael C. Hagerty Notre Dame Law School Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA Over the Wall About the author During the summer of 2011, Michael Hagerty (Candidate for Juris Doctor 2013, B.A. Williams 2008) used Tucson as his base for the exploration of migration issues in the Arizona-Sonora border region.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Immigration Enforcement and Mexican Labor Markets
    U.S. Immigration Enforcement and Mexican Labor Markets Thomas Pearson ∗ PhD Student Department of Economics Boston University Abstract This paper uses Secure Communities (SC), a policy which expanded local immigration enforcement, to study how increased immigration enforcement in the US affects Mexican labor markets. The variation in the application of SC across US states and in the destination patterns of comparably similar Mexican municipalities generates quasi-random variation in exposure to the policy. I show that in the short run, exposure to SC deportations increases return migration and decreases monthly incomes from working for less-educated men and women. SC deportations also increase net outflows within Mexico and emigration to the US, a potential mechanism for why earnings mostly rebound after five years. The negative short run effects do not appear to be driven by falls in remittance income or increases in crime as SC deportations increase the share of households receiving remittances and do not affect homicide rates. The results instead point to increased labor market competition as a result of deportee inflows. Lastly, I show that in municipalities with more banks and access to capital and where transportation and migration costs are lower, men's earnings are less responsive to the labor supply shock. Keywords: Return migration, deportations, labor markets JEL Codes: F22, O15, J40, R23 ∗270 Bay State Rd., Boston, MA 02215. Phone: 1-317-997-4495. Email: [email protected] 1 Introduction Since Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, the US has deported a record number of unauthorized immigrants and other removable noncitizens (Rosenblum and Meissner 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Secure Communities: Quarterly Report Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress Fourth Quarter January 3, 2011
    Secure Communities: Quarterly Report Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress Fourth Quarter January 3, 2011 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Message from the Assistant Secretary January 3, 2011 I am pleased to present "Secure Communities: Quarterly Report, which was prepared by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ic This report was prepared in response to language found in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-83) and its accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement. It covers the fourth quarter ofFY 2010. Pursuant to congressional requirements, this report is being provided to the following members of Congress: The Honorable David E. Price Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Harold Rogers Ranking Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Interim Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable George V. V oinovich Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Inquiries about the contents of this report should be directed to me at (202) 732-3000 or to the Department's Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Peggy Sherry, at (202) 447-5751. 000 Morton Assistant Secretary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Executive Summary In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, Congress appropriated $200 million for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to “improve and modernize efforts to identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and who may be deportable, and remove them from the United States, once they are judged deportable…”1 In response, ICE launched Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (SC/CIRCA) to transform the way ICE identifies and removes criminal aliens from the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF with Citations
    THE IMPACT OF SB1070: Usurping the Federal Government’s Ability to Set Enforcement Priorities What proponents of laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 fail to understand is that state and local enforcement of immigration law actually jeopardizes the federal government’s ability to set priorities for immigration enforcement. SB 1070 would divert scarce federal resources away from finding dangerous criminals throughout the United States, focusing instead on detaining and deporting non-violent immigrants in one state: Arizona. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) already has its hands full enforcing immigration laws. Currently, there are 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants, as well as an unknown number of legal immigrants who are deportable for either serious or minor criminal offenses, and employers who are breaking the law by employing unauthorized workers. Despite large increases in funding for immigration enforcement, ICE simply cannot target over 11 million people. For this reason, ICE sets enforcement priorities. SB1070 would put a tremendous strain on ICE’s resources and would reduce their effectiveness in enforcing immigration laws. One result of SB1070 would be to inundate DHS with requests to determine the immigration status of individuals police have arrested for suspicion of being unlawfully present. If ICE determines that the individual is indeed unlawfully present, ICE would be expected to take custody of him/her and place him/her in deportation proceedings. Furthermore, through the 287(g) program, Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program,1 ICE would screen all people booked into Arizona jails and convicted of crimes. ICE would then be expected to take custody of those immigrants charged with or convicted of these state crimes and place them in deportation proceedings.
    [Show full text]