iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Elise Foley
GET UPDATES FROM Elise:

Homeland Security's 'Secure Communities' Didn't Intentionally Deceive, Report Says

Posted: 04/ 6/2012 5:57 pm Updated: 04/ 9/2012 10:47 am

Secure Communities

WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security began an immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities, designed to find undocumented immigrants who had been arrested by local police. Homeland Security explained how jurisdictions could remove themselves from the initiative, at least temporarily, and confirmed to local officials that they could opt out if they wish.

But when states and localities tried to opt out, they were told they couldn't. Homeland Security officials seemed to switch the definition of "opt out" and then admitted they planned to expand the program nationwide by 2013, whether state and county leaders liked it or not.

None of this amounted to "intentionally" misleading the public, according to a report released on Friday by Charles K. Edwards, Homeland Security's acting inspector general. The report, in response to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a critic of the program, kept the department line on Secure Communities: The agency handled the expansion of the initiative badly, but they stand behind it.

Secure Communities is a centerpiece of the President Barack Obama administration's immigration enforcement efforts, and is partially credited with the record number of deportations in the 2011 fiscal year. The program takes fingerprints from arrests by local police and shares them with Homeland Security to catch undocumented immigrants. It has been criticized for hurting community policing, netting non-criminals and potentially encouraging racial profiling.

The report confirmed, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have many times before, that the Secure Communities program will continue. The Homeland Security inspector general instructs ICE to create standard guidelines, improve messaging by leadership and write a "lessons learned" document detailing what went wrong. ICE is in the process of making those changes, the report states.

It also says the agency misled the public -- but not intentionally.

"[C]onfusion within the agency regarding intent and participation led ICE to misinform and confuse stakeholders and the media," the report states. "Initial confusion may have stemmed from the short timeframe to implement Secure Communities. ... However, once questions and concerns arose, senior leadership within ICE and in one instance the department continued to exacerbate the problem by providing unclear and conflicting responses to inquiries and concerns. As a result, Secure Communities continues to face opposition, criticism, and resistance in some locations."

Lofgren, who called for an investigation in April 2011, said in a statement Friday that she was "frankly disappointed" by the report.

"The OIG doesn’t say whether DHS or ICE provided misinformation through incompetence or dishonesty," she said. "That leaves me concerned about the thoroughness of this review. ... Unfortunately, this lengthy review provided no meaningful information that was not already available."

Three states -- New York, Illinois and Massachusetts -- officially asked to opt out of the program last year, joining Arlington, Va., Santa Clara, Calif., and San Francisco.

After each attempt by a state or county to cut ties with the program, Homeland Security confirmed that it would continue to take fingerprints anyway.
A document that laid out directions for jurisdictions to begin a possible opt-out from the program was removed from the ICE website in October 2010. (The agency said the document may have been a result of a website changeover, but many pro-Secure Communities made the jump to the new site.)

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also listed steps for counties to ask for removal from the program in a Sept. 7, 2010, letter to Lofgren.

The Washington Post first reported in October 2010 that juridisdictions would not be able to opt out of the program, despite ICE messages to the contrary.

The inspector general's report said the agency changed the definition of participation in Secure Communities five times.

Internal ICE emails obtained by a coalition of groups called "Uncover the Truth" in a Freedom of Information Act request show ICE officials discussing how to deal with Santa Clara's efforts to end the program.

"The domino effect is starting," one identified official wrote in May 2010, according to the documents. Another email features an official saying government workers were seeking "messaging that can help ... keep [jurisdictions] on board."

In one email conversation released under the Freedom of Information Act request, ICE officials discussed a new definition for "opt-out," telling Santa Clara County that it could choose to receive information on whether people they arrested were undocumented -- although immigration enforcement efforts would be enacted either way.

One ICE worker asked another how the "front office" felt about the definition they wrote. The other said, "MY memory is that they were fine with it and didn’t see a need to take action (like sign off approving); believe it was a phone call to Marc."

"I remembered that it wasn’t in writing … which give’s [sic] them plausible deniability if this Santa Clara thing goes south," the first worker responded.

Chris Newman, legal director for National Day Laborer's Organizing Network, part of the "Uncover the Truth" coalition, said the report ignored many examples of ICE misrepresenting the program.

"DHS has moved from 'plausible deniability' to full-scale denial about the dangers of [Secure Communities] and misrepresentations ICE made about the program," Newman said in an email. "Rather than recommending a 'lessons learned document,' the OIG should recommend a 'do over' of its own report."

Another opponent of the program, California state Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D) said in a statement that the report only diminished trust in ICE. He is the author of the TRUST Act, a bill that would make Secure Communities optional in California.

"Whatever faith the community had in this out-of-control agency's ability to police itself is now permanently broken," Ammiano said. "The fox simply cannot be trusted to guard the hen house. [Secure Communities] is burdening local governments and making us all less safe."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security began an immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities, designed to find undocumented immigrants who had been arrested by l...
WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security began an immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities, designed to find undocumented immigrants who had been arrested by l...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 134
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
freedom1947
San Juan River Fishin'
10:30 AM on 04/09/2012
Homeland security. Just another freedom ripoff by this Great country of ours. Oh big brother, protect us from the bad men. You know, the ones that ain't white.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shelly Jefferson
06:20 PM on 04/08/2012
Woo,there are more illegals in most small towns in the U.S.A!!! 3100 caught,how many people were on the payroll to detain this mousy figure.How much on all expenses?The Obama led media is touting this as a success?My town of 350,000 or more than 1/4 illegal and the State is being shut down to defend it's own borders.The invasion will not be televised.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hobiedan
Keep on truckin' do dah
02:18 PM on 04/08/2012
Homeland security, aka big brother, has served its usefulness, in the interest of smaller government, shut it down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shelly Jefferson
06:44 PM on 04/08/2012
Have you ever had deep fried fresh peas,wrapped in bacon with a fluffy batter?Delicious.
09:37 AM on 04/08/2012
It is absurd to say this program burdens anybody since it simple takes fingerprints already on file from previous arrests, and compares them to the ICE data base which has fingerprints from its data base, again,FROM previous ARRESTS! So all of those who get caught have been arrested at least TWICE and to call them non-criminals is equally absurd. All of those who get nabbed ARE criminals who have been arrested. They may not have been convicted pending deportation, but they are hardly innocent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shelly Jefferson
06:23 PM on 04/08/2012
All illegals are just that.Illegal.You are welcome under the Constitution to welcome them to your State,with your State officials approval,though.
photo
Karissa36
Saving lost boys and fighting pirates.
02:03 AM on 04/08/2012
Nope, you can't opt out, and we're not interested in local police making friends with illegal immigrants. End of story.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlairCase
12:03 AM on 04/08/2012
Now that the confusion has been strightened out and everyone knows the rules, what's the problem?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nasknit
Freedom isn't free.
12:30 AM on 04/08/2012
The sanctuary cities, counties, states don't want to do it! I keep waiting for Eric Holder & DOJ to go after the aforementioned sanctuary cities/counties/states for Ignoring Federal Immigration laws, Just like they went after Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, etc!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
medusa1000
08:08 PM on 04/07/2012
Sorry Homeland Security is not at the top of my list of credible sources.
photo
RobietheCat
Altruism with someone else's money isn't
07:06 PM on 04/07/2012
re: "The program takes fingerprints from arrests by local police and shares them with Homeland Security to catch undocumented immigrants."

- How can taking fingerprints from all arrested, which is customary, be racial?

Zoe Lofgren needs to state that she would in fact prefer Open Borders and no immigration enforcement. Let her constituents then vote her up or down. Do lie, don't prevaricate.

Why did Congress pass the law if they did not intend to enforce it? Zoe is stonewalling.
06:27 PM on 04/07/2012
Secure Communities is a wonderful example of American technical innovation and prowess. For decades it was difficult to track how many illegal aliens were violating our immigration laws because there was not national computer database available. Now there is and we can at long last being the chore of ridding this nation of the unlawful foreign nationals who sneer at us when they aren't putting on melodramatic airs. The fiesta for the undocumented is coming to a close at long last!
photo
RobietheCat
Altruism with someone else's money isn't
07:07 PM on 04/07/2012
I hope you're right.

Tom Amormino is delusional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ugly american
"I drank what?"- Last words of Socrates
05:32 PM on 04/07/2012
There is nothing wrong with Secure Communities. It does for illegal aliens what NCIC does to citizens. As for "racial profiling" that charge is bogus. The reason most of the people being deported are Latino is at least 80% of the illegal foreigners in America are from Latin nations. That makes their deportation demographics, not "racism".
According to Pew Hispanic, about 50% of the Latinos in the US are not here legally. Since the 90's certain citizen Hispanics have sought to hide them and confuse who's legal and not. They are paying for that now and it's really not "profiling". If they don't like being asked for ID, too bad; they brought it on themselves.
People register on the ICE database if they've been arrested by police, CBP or ICE before. Crying for people who fall into it's web is crocodile tears. First offence illegal entry into the US may be a "civil violation" but the penalty is still deportation.
Subsequent offences are "felonies" punishable by prison time, then deportation, All people who turn up on SecComm database fit the second category.
Rather than complain (SecComm will be nationwide no matter how sanctuary cities feel about it in 2013.), lovers of illegal foreigners should be thankful their people just got deported rather than have to spend a couple of years in prison before being kicked out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chief Johnson2
We, Hispanics, are the future.
10:43 AM on 04/09/2012
"50% of the latinos in the US are not here legally"!!!!!!!!!!!! You are just out of your mind. 4 of every 5 hispanics in the US are American Citizens or legal residents.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ugly american
"I drank what?"- Last words of Socrates
09:11 PM on 04/09/2012
Don't tell me. Tell Pew Hispanic Center. That's THEIR figure, not mine.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hammer of Truth
Love AOL, just love it
04:08 PM on 04/07/2012
So Homeland Security does the INS's job now? Redundant?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
medusa1000
08:17 PM on 04/07/2012
INS doesn't exist anymore.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hammer of Truth
Love AOL, just love it
01:43 PM on 04/09/2012
See them around in Colorado all the time. Hmm? What could have propted your response?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hammer of Truth
Love AOL, just love it
05:25 PM on 04/10/2012
Something rude apparently. I'm so hurt
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hammer of Truth
Love AOL, just love it
04:07 PM on 04/07/2012
So Homeland Security does the INS's job now? Redundant?

Love to hear the Tea folks scream about big government when Bush was the one that created it along with 2 wars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BeasTT
03:10 PM on 04/07/2012
I am so glad that I came here legally, I waited my turn, so I would not have to deal with bullshh like this.
01:05 PM on 04/07/2012
YES! Secure Communities -- now and forever.

We are constantly told that the Feds are exclusively responsible for immigration enforcement. Secure Communities, enlisting the local police to help identify illegal immigrants, must be a key part of Federal law enforcement efforts.

Sorry if people didn't understand that it is mandatory. My bad. Now start going after the sanctuary cities and states and make sure they get the memo.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hammer of Truth
Love AOL, just love it
04:09 PM on 04/07/2012
Sanctuary cities, like say Denver? Congratulations on all your fans
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nasknit
Freedom isn't free.
12:03 AM on 04/08/2012
And NYC, Boston, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, etc, etc, etc!
photo
massjim
Dem? Repub? Is there a difference?
12:24 PM on 04/07/2012
So the liberal position is that we should support the Obama administrations should be able to strip search citizens mistakenly taken into custody on a false warrent, strip search us at airports, detain us indefinitely, read all our email, tap our phones, target U.S. citizens for assassination ...

But when an illegal immigrants is arrested for another crime we can't have police communicate with I.C.E. ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ugly american
"I drank what?"- Last words of Socrates
03:09 PM on 04/07/2012
There is nothing wrong with Secure Communities. It does for illegal aliens what NCIC does to citizens. As for "racial profiling" that charge is bogus on it's face. The reason most of the people being deported are Latino is because at least 80% of the illegal foreign nationals in the country are from Latin nations. That makes their deportation a matter of demographics, not "racism".
People only register on the ICE database if they have been arrested by the police, CBP or ICE before. Crying for people who fall into it's web is crocodile tears at their finest. First offence illegal entry into the US may be a "civil violation" but the penalty is still deportation.
Subsequent offences are "felonies" and punishable by prison time and then deportation, All people who turn up on the SecComm database fit the second category. So rather than complain (the system will be nationwide no matter how sanctuary cities feel about it in 2013.), lovers of illegal foreign nationals should be thankful their people just got deported rather than have to spend a couple of years in the House of Many Doors.
photo
RobietheCat
Altruism with someone else's money isn't
07:11 PM on 04/07/2012
Well stated.

It is clear the support of illegal immigration by our politicians and foreign govts is an attempt to take away our national sovereignty against the rights and will of the majority of American Citizens.

What else can taking away our rights, while ensuring people illegally in the country have nothing to fear be?