Ed. Note:
On April 25, 2017 U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick issued an injunction blocking the effort to withhold federal grant money from sanctuary jurisdictions.


Ruling [PDF] in County of Santa Clara v. Donald J. Trump et al. and City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump et et al.
_________________________

The White House - Statement on Sanctuary Cities Ruling

April 25, 2017

Office of the Press Secretary 

Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”  8 U.S.C. 1373(a).  That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities -- a sanctuary city -- is violating the law.   Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation.  These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders.

 

Once again, a single district judge -- this time in San Francisco -- has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country.  This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father's arms.  San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands.  This San Francisco judge's erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk.

 

This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.  Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping.  But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.

 

In the meantime, we will pursue all legal remedies to the sanctuary city threat that imperils our citizens, and continue our efforts to ramp up enforcement to remove the criminal and gang element from our country.  Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders, between the rule of law and lawlessness, and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom.

 

###



U.S. Department of Homeland Security
March 20, 2017
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary

DHS Releases U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Declined Detainer Outcome Report

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security today issued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Declined Detainer Outcome Report required by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, signed on January 25.  This report will be issued weekly to highlight jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with ICE detainers or requests for notification, therefore potentially endangering Americans. ICE places detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges or who are in local custody and for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe that they are removable from the United States, so that ICE can take custody of the alien when he or she is released from local custody.

“When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect the public safety and carry out its mission,” said Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan. “Our goal is to build cooperative, respectful relationships with our law enforcement partners. We will continue collaborating with them to help ensure that illegal aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially harm individuals living within our communities.”

The Declined Detainer Outcome Report is a weekly report that lists the jurisdictions that have declined to honor ICE detainers or requests for notification and includes examples of criminal charges associated with those released aliens. The report provides information on declined detainers and requests for notification for that reporting period. A jurisdiction’s appearance on this report is not an exclusive factor in determining a jurisdiction’s level of cooperation with ICE. This report is intended to provide the public with information regarding criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignores or otherwise failed to honor any detainers or requests for notification with respect to such aliens.
Related Materials:
# # #
Release Date: 
March 20, 2017

 
Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Declined Detainer Outcome Report (DDOR)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issues detainers and requests for notification to law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to provide notice of its intent to assume custody of an individual detained in federal, state, or local custody. Detainers are placed on aliens arrested on criminal charges for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe that they are removable from the United States.

A detainer requests that a LEA notify ICE as early as practicable—ideally at least 48 hours—before a removable alien is released from criminal custody and then briefly maintain custody of the alien for up to 48 hours to allow DHS to assume custody for removal purposes.  A request for notification requests that a LEA notify ICE as early as practicable – ideally at least 48 hours –before a removable alien is released from criminal custody.

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission. The Declined Detainer Outcome Report (DDOR), which meets the requirement outlined in the president’s Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, is a weekly report that lists the LEAs that declined ICE detainers or requests for notification and includes criminal charges associated with those released aliens.

The DDOR may reflect instances in which the LEA may have technically provided notification to ICE in advance of an alien’s release, but where the LEA did not provide sufficient advance notification for ICE to arrange the transfer of custody prior to release due to geographic limitations, response times, or other logistical reasons. In these instances, ICE records the detainer or request for notification as declined by the LEA.

This report only reflects the data related to the release of criminal aliens that is available to ICE. In uncooperative jurisdictions like Cook County, Illinois, and the City of Philadelphia, ICE is barred from interviewing arrestees in local custody. Therefore, in these communities a large number of criminals who have yet to be encountered by ICE are arrested by local authorities and released in these communities without any notification to ICE.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release criminals back into the community.

When criminal aliens are released from local or state custody, they have the opportunity to reoffend. There are also many risks and uncertainties involved when apprehending dangerous criminal aliens at-large in the community. It takes careful planning and extensive resources to mitigate those risks and make a safe apprehension in a community setting. It is much safer for all involved—the community, law enforcement, and even the criminal alien—if ICE officers take custody in the controlled environment of another law enforcement agency.

# # #


Release Date: 
March 20, 2017

Q&A: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Declined Detainer Outcome Report (DDOR)

Q: What is a detainer?

A: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issues detainers to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to provide notice of its intent to assume custody of a removable alien detained in federal, state, or local custody.  A detainer requests that the law enforcement agency notify ICE as early as practicable—ideally at least 48 hours—before a removable alien is released from criminal custody and briefly maintain custody of the alien for up to 48 hours to allow DHS to assume custody for removal purposes.

Q: What is a declined detainer?

A: When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release a criminal alien onto the streets, they have declined an ICE detainer. This undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission. Federal immigration laws authorize DHS to issue detainers and provide ICE broad authority to detain removable aliens.

Q: How is an individual placed under a detainer?

A: When an individual is booked into custody by a law enforcement agency, his or her biometric data is automatically routed through federal databases to the FBI.  The FBI shares this information with ICE. If ICE has probable cause to suspect the individual is a removable alien, ICE sends a detainer to the law enforcement agency.

Q: Why is ICE providing these reports now?

A: The president’s Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, and DHS Secretary Kelly’s memorandum on the implementation of the same, instructs the ICE Director to make this report public.

Q: Why do some jurisdictions ignore detainers?

A: In some cases, state or local laws, ordinances, or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE.  In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers and release criminals back into the community.  The results in both cases are the same: aliens released onto the streets to potentially reoffend or harm individuals living within our communities.

Q: Why should the public care if jurisdictions don’t observe ICE detainers?

A: If jurisdictions do not honor ICE detainers, criminals are released into communities, where they can commit more crimes and are subject to at-large arrests which may be disruptive to communities. Three examples of criminal aliens who are subject to removal but were released despite the issuance of an active detainer within the last few months follow; all have been re-arrested and are currently in custody:

  • Milton Berrera-Lopez was released from local custody when a detainer lodged with Philadelphia authorities was not honored. The Guatemalan national has a previous conviction for two counts of indecent exposure involving minors.
  • Estivan Rafael Marques Velasquez, a self-admitted MS-13 gang member, was released from New York City custody with an active ICE detainer in place. The Salvadoran national has a criminal history in the United States which includes reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and disorderly conduct.
  • Ramon Aguirre Ochoa was deported in May 2009. In 2015, he was arrested on domestic aggravated assault charges in Philadelphia. The charges were dismissed, despite ICE filing a detainer to take custody and remove him from the country again. Philadelphia ignored that detainer and released Aguirre Ochoa back into the community. He was arrested again in Philadelphia on July 26, 2016, and charged with involuntary sexual intercourse, unlawful contact with a minor, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, indecent assault on person less than 13, indecent exposure, and simple assault.

Q: Does ICE still work with jurisdictions that do not observe detainers on other law enforcement actions?

A: Yes. ICE is committed to maintaining and strengthening its relationships with local law enforcement. ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that individuals who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities.

Q: Where does the list come from?

A: ICE maintains records for each detainer or request for notification that is issued and updates those records when a detainer or request for notification is declined. The list is generated from this data.

Q: Why is the public safer when jurisdictions honor ICE detainers?

A: When criminal aliens are released from local or state custody, they have the opportunity to reoffend. There are also many risks and uncertainties involved when apprehending dangerous criminal aliens at-large in the community. It takes careful planning and extensive resources to mitigate those risks and make a safe apprehension in a community setting. It is much safer for everyone—the community, law enforcement, and even the criminal alien—if ICE officers take custody of the alien in the controlled environment of another law enforcement agency as opposed to visiting a reported alien’s residence, place of work, or other public area.

Q: What is ICE’s overall mission? Why do they want the detainers enforced?

A: ICE is committed to using its unique enforcement authorities and available resources and tools to promote national security, uphold public safety, and preserve the integrity of our immigration system. The use of detainers is an efficient, effective and safe means to carry out ICE’s mission.

Q: Are detainers placed on random criminal aliens?

A: ICE places detainers on individuals whom ICE has probable cause to suspect are removable aliens in state and local law enforcement agency custody on criminal charges.

Q: Are the jurisdictions or agencies on this list considered sanctuary locations?

A: The Declined Detainer Outcome Report (DDOR) is intended to provide the public with information regarding criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignores or otherwise failed to honor any detainers or requests for information with respect to such aliens.  As set forth in Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, the Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to evaluate the appropriate criteria for such designation. 

Q: How does the report inform the decision on whether a location is a sanctuary jurisdiction?

A: The president’s Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, requires publication of this report. The report lists locations that have ignored or otherwise failed to honor an immigration detainer or request for notification. As set forth in the Executive Order, the Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.  DHS continues to evaluate the appropriate criteria for such designation. 

Q: My jurisdiction is on the Declined Detainer Outcome Report.  Will we lose our federal funding? What federal funding might my jurisdiction lose? For example, if a natural disaster occurs, will we receive federal assistance?

A: The DDOR is intended to provide the public with information regarding criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignores or otherwise failed to honor any detainers or requests for notification with respect to such aliens. ICE does not administer grants, and inclusion on the DDOR will not automatically result in ineligibility for grants.  Section 9(a) of the Executive Order recognizes the authority of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in their discretion and consistent with law, to ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 USC § 1373 are not eligible to receive federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.  DHS is currently working to develop a process, in coordination with the Department of Justice and other interagency partners, to address this requirement of the EO.

Q: Does this report include Requests for Notification (I-247N)? If so, why?

A: Yes. The Request for Voluntary Notification (Form I-247N) is one of the tools ICE has used to notify law enforcement agencies of its interest in taking custody of an alien in state or local custody. The declination of Requests for Voluntary Notification also result in the release of criminal aliens, which provides an unnecessary risk to public and officer safety as ICE personnel are forced to arrest such aliens in an at-large setting.  Although this report includes information relating to Form I-247N, DHS will be replacing Forms I-247D, I-247N, and I-247X in the near future.  Information related to the superseding detainer form and its predecessors will be documented and reported by ICE going forward. Until fully vetted, reviewed, and approved, ICE will utilize the existing detainer and notification forms as an interim measure.

Q: This report notes that it may reflect instances in which a law enforcement agency may have provided notification to ICE in advance of an alien’s release, but where the LEA did not provide “sufficient advance notification” for ICE to arrange the transfer of custody prior to release due to geographic limitations, response times, or other logistical reasons.  What is sufficient advance notification?

A: Lack of sufficient advance notification is based on the judgment of immigration officers, taking into consideration geographic limitations, response times, and other local logistical details. Advance notification is sufficient when ICE is given enough time to mobilize its resources to effectuate a safe transfer into ICE custody.  Sufficient advance notice is a commonly understood standard for law enforcement jurisdictions working closely together.

Q: How many of these instances were included in this report for my jurisdictions?  Please provide the details of these instances and why ICE thought they did not have sufficient advance notification.

A: Detainers and Requests for Notification are not honored for a variety of reasons, as noted in the Declined Detainer Outcomes Report. ICE documents non-honored Detainers and Requests for Notification once discovered by ICE personnel during their enforcement activities.  In instances of insufficient notification to ICE, these are generally cases in which the law enforcement agency did not provide ICE with enough time to mobilize its resources to effectuate a safe custody transfer.

Q: Is DHS changing its legal position that ICE detainers are voluntary?

A: DHS has not retreated from its position that detainers serve as a legally-authorized request, upon which a law enforcement agency may rely, to continue to maintain custody of the alien for up to 48 hours so that ICE may assume custody for removal purposes.

Q: The February 21 DHS implementing memorandum on the Executive Orders stated that DHS will eliminate the existing forms (I-247D, I-247N, and I-247X) and replace them with a new form to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies.  Why are old forms still being used?  When will they be replaced?

A: DHS is in the process of creating a new detainer form to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies. Although this report includes information relating to Form I-247N, DHS will be replacing Forms I-247D, I-247N, and I-247X in the near future.  Information related to the superseding detainer form and its predecessors will be documented and reported by ICE going forward.  Until fully vetted, reviewed, and approved, ICE will utilize the existing detainer and notification forms as an interim measure.

Q: Why are jurisdictions listed here when they are prohibited from honoring detainers based on state laws, binding judicial opinions, or consent decrees limiting detainer compliance?

A: Regardless of the reason for which a jurisdiction does not honor ICE detainers or requests for notification, such action by the jurisdiction nonetheless adversely impacts public safety.  When a jurisdiction declines to honor an ICE detainer or request for notification, a criminal alien is released into the community, where he or she has the opportunity to commit additional crimes, rather than being safely detained and processed for removal by ICE. 

Q: What does “notable criminal activity” mean?  Why aren’t all criminal charges and convictions listed in this report?

A: “Notable criminal activity” documents egregious charges and convictions of the alien for whom a detainer was not honored.  This report includes criminal charges contained in local, state, and federal indexes and recorded in ICE's database.

Q: I have information that contradicts what is on this report.  What is the process for correcting the information on this report?

A: Concerns from the community can be relayed to a local community relations officer who may be contacted via a local ICE field office, which can be found at: https://www.ice.gov/contact/field-offices

Q: Is this report inclusive of all declined detainers?

A: This report is inclusive of declined detainers that were not honored by a law enforcement agency, discovered by ICE personnel during their enforcement activities as not being honored, and documented in ICE systems during the reporting period specified.

Q: Can I get more information about a specific case?

A:   Members of the public may submit requests for information to ICE’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office.  Each request will be evaluated under the disclosure provisions of FOIA.

# # #


Department of Justice
March 27, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Good afternoon.  The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce our nation’s laws, including our immigration laws.  Those laws require us to promptly remove aliens when they are convicted of certain crimes.  
 
The vast majority of the American people support this common-sense requirement.  According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities.

Unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of our immigration laws.  This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws.  For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime.  The charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder.     
 
Such policies cannot continue.  They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets.  
 
We all remember the tragic case of Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed two years ago in San Francisco as she walked along a pier with her father.  The shooter, Francisco Sanchez, was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.   
 
Just eleven weeks before the shooting, San Francisco had released Sanchez from its custody, even though ICE had filed a detainer requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up for removal.  Even worse, Sanchez admitted that the only reason he came to San Francisco was because of its sanctuary policies.  
 
A similar story unfolded just last week, when Ever Valles, an illegal immigrant and Mexican national, was charged with murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station.  Valles was released from a Denver jail in late December, despite the fact that ICE had lodged a detainer for his removal.  
 
The American people are justifiably angry.  They know that when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe.  Failure to deport aliens who are convicted for criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk – especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators.
  
DUIs, assaults, burglaries, drug crimes, gang crimes, rapes, crimes against children and murders.  Countless Americans would be alive today – and countless loved ones would not be grieving today – if the policies of these sanctuary jurisdictions were ended.  

Not only do these policies endanger the lives of every American; just last May, the Department of Justice Inspector General found that these policies also violate federal law. 
 
The President has rightly said that this disregard for the law must end.  In his executive order, he stated that it is the policy of the executive branch to ensure that states and cities comply with all federal laws, including our immigration laws.

The order also states that “the Attorney General and the Secretary [of Homeland Security] . . . shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply” with the law “are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.”

Today I am urging all states and local jurisdictions to comply with all federal laws, including 8 U.S.C. Section 1373.  Moreover, the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department grants to certify compliance with Section 1373 as a condition for receiving these awards. 
 
This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) guidance issued last July under the previous administration.  This guidance requires state and local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants.  It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding of grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants.

The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw-back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates Section 1373. 
 
In the current fiscal year, department’s OJP and Community Oriented Policing Services anticipate awarding more than $4.1 billion dollars in grants.  
 
I urge our nation’s states and cities to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to re-think these policies.  Such policies make their cities and states less safe, and put them at risk of losing valuable federal dollars.

The American people want and deserve a lawful immigration system that keeps us safe and serves our national interest.  This expectation is reasonable, and our government has a duty to meet it. And we will meet it.