By Ray Chen, Emerson National Hunger Fellow at the Office of Public Witness
On February 20,
2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued two memoranda [1,
2]
that guides DHS offices and personnel on how the department will fulfill the
executive orders President Trump signed earlier in January [1,
2].
The memos detail a radical departure from more community-friendly guidelines
that were adopted towards the end of the Obama administration. Generally, there
will be much stricter immigration enforcement and subsequent expansion of the
immigration system. It is still unclear as to how these memos will affect
immigration enforcement on the ground, but they provide us with general trends
we need to be aware of.
1. These memos rescind all previous DHS guidelines except
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans
memos, including the memo that enforce sensitive locations, which grant
churches a layer of protection when providing sanctuary, and memos that protect
vulnerable populations.
All conflicting
DHS guidelines were rescinded except for the 2012 DACA memorandum and the Nov
2014 DACA+/DAPA memorandum, which allow deferred action and work authorization for
undocumented people who enter the country as minors and parents of US citizens
or lawful permanent residents.
However, it is
unclear what this will look in practice, but some clues offer us some insight
on the following guidelines:
● Enforcement actions at sensitive locations. The sensitive location memo instructs
ICE officers to avoid enforcement activity at places of worship, schools,
medical facilities, religious or civil ceremonies, and public demonstrations. The
memo protects the people who are housed in places of worship in the Sanctuary
Movement. This guideline is currently still up on the DHS FAQ page. However, this may be only
temporary, and it is important to note that there have been reports of
enforcement actions adjacent to these sensitive locations (i.e. on
public road next to a school).
● Protection for victims or witnesses of crime. On Tuesday, Apr 5, DHS spokesperson
says that witnesses or victims of crime are not immune to deportation (the Hill). This can lead to decreased public
safety, as undocumented people will be less likely to report crime.
● Protection for other vulnerable populations. Previous guidelines have deemed
certain groups of people as not an enforcement priority for humanitarian
reasons, such as primary caregivers of children, individuals with serious
mental disabilities or physical illness, and pregnant and nursing mothers.
However, the memo that allows for this flexibility was
specifically named to be revoked in the new memos.
2. These memos end “catch and release,” which allowed undocumented people without criminal records to not be detained, and restrict
exemptions from detention to a very few people, greatly increasing the
population targeted for detention.
These memos
specifically called for an end to “catch and release,” which loosely describes
the practice of not detaining undocumented people unless if they meet certain
criteria for priority removal such as having been convicted of a felony or
being a gang member.
With these new
guidelines, the only people exempted from detention are: People who are being
removed from the US; People granted relief from removal or with valid
immigration status in the US; People who withdraw an application for admission
voluntarily and leave the US; People required to be released by statute,
judicial order, or a binding settlement agreement; People granted parole under
the DHS; People who an asylum officer finds has a “credible fear” of
persecution or torture, pose no security risk, and agree to comply with any additional
conditions of release.
Very few people
fit the above criteria, and there would need to be massive expansion of
detention facility and personnel to make these detentions a reality. The
guidelines vaguely state that ”detention resources should be prioritized based
upon potential danger and risk of flight.” The memos also specifically name a
restriction on the use of parole, adding that parole can only be granted in
“demonstrated urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.”
Further regulations that clarify the use of parole power is expected.
3. These memos expand the definition of who is considered
criminal, thus prioritizing the removal of virtually all undocumented people.
● convicted or charged with any
criminal offense,
● committed acts that constitute a
chargeable criminal offense,
● engaged in fraud or willful
misrepresentation,
● have abused any public benefits
programs,
● have a final order of removal, or,
● as deemed by an immigration officer,
poses a risk to public safety or national security.
These criteria
are broad and ambiguous, and can cover petty offenses such as jaywalking or
even simply “improper entry by alien.” There is also a specific focus on
immigration offenses committed at the southern border.
4. These memos restrict prosecutorial discretion and
expand expedited removal so that more people are deported without due process
of law.
In contrast to
previous guidelines that encouraged prosecutorial discretion for vulnerable
groups, these memos say that “shall not be exercised in a manner that exempts
or excludes a specific class or category of aliens from enforcement of the
immigration.” The General Counsel will issue further guidance on what this will
look like in practice.
Furthermore,
there is an expansion of the use of Expedited Removal that allows for the
removal of arriving undocumented people at the discretion of immigration
officers, without further judicial hearings or review. Before the memo,
expedited removal had only been used within 100 air miles of the border for
people who have only been in the US for less than 14 days and people arriving
to the US by sea other than at a port of entry. This memo seeks to enforce
removal without further hearings or review for anyone who cannot prove that
they have been continuously present in the US for at least two years. The
specific guidance has not yet been developed, and will be published in the Federal Register.
5. These memos call for increased state and local law
enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies.
Under the
Priority Enforcement Program that has now been dismantled, there has been a
shift away from state and local law enforcement agencies assisting in the
enforcement of federal immigration law. Returning to the Secure Communities
program, local and state enforcement can detain an undocumented
individual for up to 48 hours additional hours so that ICE officers can
apprehend the person, regardless of the type of crime the person had been
charged for. Many civil rights groups have criticized this hold as
unconstitutional detention.
Furthermore,
the memo calls for the expansion of the 287(g)
program in the border region, which allow for written agreements between
state and local governments to authorize their law enforcement agencies to
perform the functions of a federal immigration officer. The 287(g) program had
been restricted after it came under criticism for encouraging racial profiling
behaviors from local law enforcement and putting communities in dangers as a
result of fewer crimes being reported for fear of deportation.
The memo also calls for the expansion
of the Criminal Alien
Program (CAP), which is facilitated by increased state and local
cooperation. CAP focuses on expediting securing a final order of removal for
undocumented people who are incarcerated so that the person is deported without
even being taken into ICE custody.
6. These memos call for the expansion of detention
facilities & enforcement staff.
To implement
the above policies, the memos call for the hiring of an additional 10,000 ICE
agents and other associated operational, mission support, and legal staff,
5,000 additional border patrol agents, and 500 air and marine agents or
officers. The memos also call for resources to be allocated to expanding
detention capabilities and building a border wall. Congress will have to
allocate enough funds in the federal budget to the DHS for the department to
make this expansion a reality.
7. These memos create mechanisms to reinforce the narrative
of the “criminal alien.”
Most ostentatiously,
the memos establish the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office,
which will ensure that victims of crimes committed by undocumented people and
the victims’ families have information about the offender. Furthermore, the
memos call for a monthly report of data on alien apprehensions and releases
that include “country of citizenship, convicted criminals and the nature of
their offenses, gang members, prior immigration violators, custody status of
aliens, and if release, the reason for release and location of their release,
aliens ordered removed, and aliens physically removed or returned.” The memos
also calls for a weekly
report to the public of non-federal jurisdictions that release aliens from
their custody, particularly spotlighting cities that have adopted “sanctuary”
policies and do not fully cooperate with ICE officers.
In contrast to
prior protocol, the memo declares that the Privacy Act as now only covering US
citizens and lawful permanent residents, thus facilitating the release of
personal identifiable information to the public by these regular reports and
the VOICE office. Under the guise of transparency and accountability, the
department is releasing information that can be used as fodder to feed the
growing hysteria around “criminal aliens.”
Conclusion
The memos also
cover other policy changes, such as ones to collect authorized civil fines and
penalties from undocumented people and those who facilitate their presence, to
return arriving unauthorized migrants to the contiguous country while they wait
for their removal proceedings, regardless of their country of origin, and to
change the definition of who qualifies as an unaccompanied minor.
Overall, these
memos show that this administration seeks to greatly expand immigration
enforcement, and that any undocumented person can be targeted for removal.
However, it is unclear how these policies will actually look in practice. It is
important to continue watching out for new guidelines that more specifically
describe how these policies look on the ground.
