{ "id": "R44118", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44118", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 596731, "date": "2017-01-10", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T17:06:58.398896", "title": "Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief ", "summary": "The prominence of immigration enforcement issues during the 2016 presidential election as well as publicity surrounding crimes committed by some unauthorized aliens have reignited debates over immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. One homicide case, the July 2, 2015, slaying of a woman in San Francisco by a reported unauthorized alien with a criminal and deportation history, is noteworthy, because the law enforcement agency in question reportedly did not honor an immigration detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s (DHS\u2019s) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the individual who committed the crime. ICE has made the removal of certain criminal aliens its top priority. Funding for all criminal alien programs has increased substantially since their inception in FY2004. In FY2016, funding amounted to $341 million, compared to $6 million in FY2004. \nIn 2014, noncitizens represented 7.0% of the U.S. population. 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. These figures are understated because they do not include figures for California which did not report its non-citizen incarcerated population. \nDrug and immigration offenses represented almost 90% of all federal offenses committed by noncitizens in FY2013. Incarceration data from FY2013 indicate that drug offenders accounted for 50% of all offenders in federal prison, with incarcerated noncitizens having a comparable if slightly lower proportion in this offense category (46%) compared with incarcerated citizens (52%). Although immigration offenders represented almost 12% of all incarcerated federal offenders, they represented 43% of all federal noncitizen offenders. Published data on the state and local prisoners by offense type and citizenship status are not available.\nImmigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, but efforts have been made continually to use the potential \u201cforce multipliers\u201d offered by local law enforcement. Legislation enacted in 1996 allows the federal government to enter into \u201c287(g)\u201d agreements with state and local law enforcement jurisdictions that permit it to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement agents. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this program and others involving federal and state and local cooperation expanded.\nICE also operates the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), which is guided by the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), a set of immigration enforcement priorities that describe which foreign nationals should be removed and in what priority order. PEP also employs \u201cinteroperability,\u201d a data sharing infrastructure between DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) that screens individuals for immigration-related violations when they are booked by law enforcement jurisdictions. PEP replaced the former Secure Communities, which many jurisdictions with large foreign-born populations had opposed.\nIn recent years, some jurisdictions have expressly defined or limited their roles and the activities of their employees regarding immigration enforcement. These have been referred to as \u201csanctuary\u201d jurisdictions. Critics of sanctuary jurisdictions contend that they impede law enforcement\u2019s primary mission in ways that could lead to calamitous outcomes (such as the homicide in San Francisco) or could encourage illegal immigration. Supporters maintain that they are needed because of resource and legal constraints, the need to avoid the disruption of critical municipal services by diverting local law enforcement personnel to handle immigration enforcement, and community policing concerns.\nCongress 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\u2014or a mix of both approaches\u2014would yield the greater cooperation proponents seek.\nThe 114th Congress introduced several legislative proposals related to sanctuary jurisdictions. Some would have prohibited jurisdictions from receiving certain federal grants if they limited in specified ways their cooperation with ICE regarding immigration enforcement. The House passed H.R. 3009 on July 23, 2015. That bill would have penalized states and localities that restrict information gathering or communication with federal immigration enforcement agencies regarding an individual\u2019s citizenship or immigration status by withholding funding for three DOJ grant programs: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS), and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44118", "sha1": "1bb7eb7578b360be4a25b95706ffc070fce075a0", "filename": "files/20170110_R44118_1bb7eb7578b360be4a25b95706ffc070fce075a0.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44118", "sha1": "fe15bcbb7ea9f8cffa4c69cfd3f650cff00cc6a7", "filename": "files/20170110_R44118_fe15bcbb7ea9f8cffa4c69cfd3f650cff00cc6a7.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4886, "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455273, "date": "2016-07-01", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:47:20.742021", "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 \u2013 was particularly noteworthy, because the law enforcement agency in question reportedly did not honor an immigration detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s (DHS\u2019s) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the individual who committed the crime.\nAt 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.\nIncarceration 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.\nWhile immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, efforts have continually been made to use the potential \u201cforce multipliers\u201d 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.\nICE\u2019s 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.\nIn 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 \u201csanctuary\u201d 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.\nCongress 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\u2014or a mix of both approaches\u2014would yield the greater cooperation roponents are seeking.\nThe 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. \nSimilarly, 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. \nS.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.\nThe 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.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44118", "sha1": "9f2195f089e3a52d4245a268e488230d6d5affa0", "filename": "files/20160701_R44118_9f2195f089e3a52d4245a268e488230d6d5affa0.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44118", "sha1": "9ea9d173497e8ae8d46a00959559fd09ca9353f3", "filename": "files/20160701_R44118_9ea9d173497e8ae8d46a00959559fd09ca9353f3.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4886, "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 446566, "date": "2015-10-20", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:08:15.752395", "title": "Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief", "summary": "The July 2, 2015, slaying of a woman on a San Francisco pier by a reported unauthorized alien with a criminal and deportation history has reignited the debate over immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. This case is particularly noteworthy because the law enforcement agency in question reportedly did not honor an immigration detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s (DHS\u2019s) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).\nAt the end of 2013, noncitizens accounted for 25.2% of the 214,575 individuals incarcerated in federal prisons, 3.8% of the 1,270,807 individuals incarcerated in state prisons, and 6.9% of the entire incarcerated population. In that year, noncitizens represented 7.0% of the U.S. population.\nSentencing data indicate that drug offenders accounted for almost 51% of all federal offenders in federal prison at the end of the year in 2012. Forty-five percent of noncitizen federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses at the end of 2012. Although immigration offenders represented almost 12% of all federal offenders incarcerated at the end of 2012, they represented 44% of all federal noncitizen offenders. Published sentencing data on the state and local prisoners by offense type and citizenship status are not available.\nWhile immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, efforts have continually been made to use the potential \u201cforce multipliers\u201d offered by local law enforcement. However, in recent years, some jurisdictions have expressly defined or limited their roles and the activities of their employees regarding immigration enforcement. Critics argue that these policies can create \u201csanctuary\u201d jurisdictions that 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.\nIn 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 took on new urgency.\nICE operates four key programs to identify and remove criminal and other removable aliens. Of these four, the Criminal Alien Program, Secure Communities/interoperability program, and Section 287(g) program work directly with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and remove criminal and other removable aliens. While funding for these programs has increased over the years since their inception, it has declined in recent years.\nCongress 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\u2014or a mix of both approaches\u2014would yield the greater cooperation desired.\nThe 114th Congress is considering proposals that would prohibit jurisdictions from receiving certain grant monies that prohibit or restrict its LEAs from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens or collect information on the immigration or citizenship status of individuals. These proposals include H.R. 3009, H.R. 3002, S. 80, and S. 1764. 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. The Senate is expected 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.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44118", "sha1": "a32e167798020f1f7730b1ebb48cd9dd8795bf02", "filename": "files/20151020_R44118_a32e167798020f1f7730b1ebb48cd9dd8795bf02.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44118", "sha1": "6923ec85c1b5eacf67f38a5e8d4101b462c3e0bb", "filename": "files/20151020_R44118_6923ec85c1b5eacf67f38a5e8d4101b462c3e0bb.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 676, "name": "Immigration Policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc743650/", "id": "R44118_2015Jul24", "date": "2015-07-24", "retrieved": "2015-10-20T21:35:54", "title": "Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief", "summary": "This report examines the interplay between the federal government -- i.e., Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) -- and state and local jurisdictions in enforcing immigration law, with a specific focus on noncitizens who have been convicted of a crime. It briefly outlines the evolution of the cooperation among law enforcement agencies, then discusses current administrative efforts to involve state and local law enforcement, and explores major programs and federal resources available to those agencies that cooperate with ICE to enforce immigration law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150724_R44118_ca9f1c5e4144d4ffe9390b1fa260163c8bca57b7.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150724_R44118_ca9f1c5e4144d4ffe9390b1fa260163c8bca57b7.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Immigration", "name": "Immigration" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Immigration law", "name": "Immigration law" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Illegal aliens", "name": "Illegal aliens" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Criminal aliens", "name": "Criminal aliens" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Immigration Policy" ] }