The Cost of Crimmigration
The Cost of Crimmigration: Exploring the Intersection Between Criminal Justice and Immigration
The Cost of Crimmigration: Exploring the Intersection Between Criminal Justice and Immigration
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Cost</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Exploring the Intersection Between<br />
<strong>Crimmigration</strong><br />
Criminal Justice and Immigration<br />
JusticePolicy.org
ABOUT<br />
According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, every<br />
county in the United States has some involvement with the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security’s (DHS) immigration<br />
enforcement efforts. However, the cost to taxpayers when<br />
local governments “partner” with DHS goes well beyond<br />
what few dollars a community might get from the federal<br />
government and <strong>of</strong>ten exceeds expected criminal justice<br />
expenses. <strong>Crimmigration</strong> has led to significant increases in<br />
local spending on incarceration, an additional burden on city<br />
and county taxpayers. Communities lose valuable workers<br />
who are needed in vital parts <strong>of</strong> the local economy, which<br />
lose tax revenue when immigrants are ensnared in the system<br />
for minor immigration violations. Cities and counties also<br />
face potential lawsuits due to complications resulting from<br />
enforcing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)<br />
policies. All these costs are paid for by local taxpayers, with<br />
little to no reimbursement by the federal government.
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
What is <strong>Crimmigration</strong>?<br />
Impact on Local Communities<br />
<strong>Cost</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Crimmigration</strong><br />
<strong>Cost</strong> <strong>of</strong> Non-citizen Detention<br />
Public Safety<br />
Immigration Enforcement Programs<br />
Legal Liability<br />
Punishment <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary Cities<br />
Social <strong>Cost</strong>s to Society<br />
Lost Tax Revenue
What is<br />
<strong>Crimmigration</strong><br />
<strong>Crimmigration</strong><br />
A term used by the policy reform community to refer to the intersection<br />
between criminal law and immigration law, where state and local criminal<br />
justice systems have begun to enforce federal immigration <strong>of</strong>fenses and<br />
expand the categories <strong>of</strong> criminal infractions that can incarcerate and<br />
apprehend both authorized and unauthorized non-citizens. <strong>Crimmigration</strong><br />
policies are the newest iteration <strong>of</strong> America’s mass incarceration problem:<br />
even minor citations can make authorized immigrants detainable and<br />
deportable, costing jurisdictions millions <strong>of</strong> dollars annually.<br />
Delegation <strong>of</strong> Immigration Authority Program – or<br />
287(g)<br />
A collaboration between the Department <strong>of</strong> Homeland Security and a city or<br />
county that deputizes law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficers to enforce federal immigration<br />
laws, on behalf <strong>of</strong> ICE. <strong>The</strong> local <strong>of</strong>ficers have the authority to identify,<br />
process, charge, and detain people believed to be violating immigration law.<br />
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)<br />
A program that potentially reimburses state and local governments for the cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> holding non-citizens during their criminal proceedings. In recent years,<br />
SCAAP reimbursements covered less than a quarter <strong>of</strong> the total costs, while<br />
funding has continued to drop and is eliminated in President Trump’s<br />
proposed budget.
Impact on<br />
Local<br />
Governments<br />
Cities and counties can become involved in federal immigration<br />
enforcement by establishing a partnership with the Department <strong>of</strong> Homeland<br />
Security under section 287(g) <strong>of</strong> the Immigration Reform and Immigration<br />
Responsibility Act (IRIRA). Involvement in 287(g) programs deputizes local<br />
law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficers (i.e. local police or Sheriffs) to perform certain<br />
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) functions.<br />
While cities and counties receive a modest amount <strong>of</strong> funding for training<br />
and to assume federal immigration enforcement roles, these federal dollars do<br />
not cover a significant portion <strong>of</strong> the costs associated with immigration<br />
enforcement. <strong>The</strong> remaining, and <strong>of</strong>ten substantial, amount is then borne by<br />
local taxpayers who, in return, see little to no public safety benefit. Under the<br />
current Administration, these partnerships are expected to grow, as are their far-<br />
reaching impacts.<br />
Click to learn more about communities that have already felt the negative<br />
consequences <strong>of</strong> crimmigration involvement.
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Crimmigration</strong><br />
<strong>Cost</strong><br />
Although general law enforcement expenditures<br />
cover a wide spectrum, the United States spends<br />
a staggering amount on immigration enforcement,<br />
with the burden falling heavily on key states.<br />
Nearly 1/3 <strong>of</strong> Immigration Law<br />
Enforcement <strong>Cost</strong>s go to the<br />
top 5 states<br />
Top 5 State Immigration Law<br />
Enforcement <strong>Cost</strong>s<br />
1. California - $1,197,000,000<br />
2. New York - $403,200,000<br />
3. Texas - $366,100,000<br />
4. Florida - $320,700,000<br />
5. Illinois - $238,100,000<br />
Total <strong>Cost</strong> = $3,894,100,000<br />
California (47.40%) New York (15.97%)<br />
Illinois (9.43%)<br />
Texas (14.50%) Florida (12.70%)
<strong>Cost</strong> <strong>of</strong> Non-citizen<br />
Detention<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the major costs related to immigration<br />
enforcement is non-citizen detention. States and<br />
counties must find places to hold non-citizens,<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten for extended periods <strong>of</strong> time.<br />
Over 2/3 <strong>of</strong> Non-citizen Criminal<br />
Detention <strong>Cost</strong>s are borne by<br />
only 5 states<br />
Top 5 State Non-citizen<br />
Criminal Detention <strong>Cost</strong>s<br />
1. California - $721,600,000<br />
2. New York - $174,400,000<br />
3. Arizona - $154,800,000<br />
4. Texas - $149,600,000<br />
5. Florida - $114,400,000<br />
Total <strong>Cost</strong> = $1,857,400,000
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Safety<br />
Public<br />
While non-citizens commit crime at lower rates<br />
than natural-born citizens, they face<br />
disproportionate arrest and sentencing rates at<br />
the local, state, and federal levels.<br />
Recent rhetoric about the<br />
relationship between criminal<br />
Percentage <strong>of</strong> Noncitizens<br />
in Total Incarcerated<br />
Population<br />
activity and immigrants is false.<br />
Research shows that non-citizens<br />
commit far less crime than native-<br />
born citizens.<br />
Non-citizens Incarcerated at State and<br />
Federal Levels = 88,248<br />
Federal Criminal Offenses <strong>of</strong><br />
Undocumented Non-citizens<br />
99% <strong>of</strong> the people locked up in the<br />
federal system for immigration<br />
violations were arrested for drug<br />
or immigration <strong>of</strong>fenses. Less than<br />
1% are arrested for<br />
murder/manslaughter.
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Immigration<br />
Programs<br />
Enforcement<br />
As the burden <strong>of</strong> immigration enforcement falls on<br />
local counties and cities, government programs<br />
promise aid that covers only a fraction <strong>of</strong> the cost.<br />
Completely<br />
Voluntary?<br />
Fully Funded?<br />
Immigration Detainer<br />
Secure Communities<br />
Criminal Alien Program<br />
287(g) Program<br />
State and Local Detention<br />
Contracts with ICE
written request to a law enforcement<br />
a<br />
to hold non-citizens for an additional 48 hours, in order to provide ICE<br />
agency<br />
meaningful opportunity to decide whether to take an individual into federal<br />
a<br />
for potential removal.<br />
custody<br />
Liability<br />
Counties face lawsuits as they hold non-citizens<br />
in detention centers well beyond the 48-hour<br />
Legal<br />
ICE Detainer period.<br />
ICE Detainer (or ICE Hold):<br />
$40,000<br />
<strong>Cost</strong> that Jefferson County, CO was<br />
subjected to during a lawsuit after<br />
holding a man in jail for 47 days on an<br />
ICE Hold.<br />
$724,000<br />
Proposed settlement cost to San Juan<br />
County, NM for illegal holds.<br />
$35,000<br />
<strong>Cost</strong> to Spokane County, WA to settle<br />
with a man who was wrongfully held<br />
without bail for 20 days due to an<br />
ICE Hold.
Sanctuary City: a place designed to limit cooperation with involvement in<br />
Punishment <strong>of</strong><br />
Cities<br />
Sanctuary<br />
While the debate is fluid, the current Administration<br />
threatened to take away funding from cities that do<br />
not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.<br />
federal immigration enforcement through formal and informal policies.<br />
$454/person<br />
<strong>The</strong> average amount <strong>of</strong> lost federal funding for<br />
a family <strong>of</strong> four residing in a sanctuary city.<br />
$3.2 million<br />
<strong>The</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> funding that Chicago will no<br />
longer receive, which goes directly towards<br />
purchasing body-worn cameras for the<br />
Chicago Police Department.<br />
$500 million<br />
<strong>The</strong> amount Mayor de Blasio estimates<br />
New York City taxpayers will have to pay<br />
to make up for lost federal funding.
<strong>Cost</strong> to Society<br />
Social<br />
Immigration enforcement results in many noncitizens<br />
living in fear <strong>of</strong> detention and deportation<br />
after any interaction with police.<br />
Davidson County, TN<br />
participated in the 287(g) program. After seeing<br />
these consequences, they withdrew from the program:<br />
42%<br />
Percentage <strong>of</strong> Latinxs in Davidson<br />
County who said they knew <strong>of</strong> a crime<br />
<strong>of</strong> police involvement.<br />
54%<br />
that has not been reported due to fear<br />
Percentage <strong>of</strong> Latinxs who admitted to not<br />
calling the police, fearing racial pr<strong>of</strong>iling<br />
73%<br />
related to immigration issues.<br />
People in Davidson County who<br />
reported feeling increased apprehension<br />
about police cooperation.<br />
85%<br />
<strong>The</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> Davidson County non-<br />
citizen arrests that are misdemeanors, a<br />
disproportionate impact <strong>of</strong> 287(g).
Tax Revenue<br />
Lost<br />
Along with the costs associated with enforcing<br />
immigration policies, the economy will lose<br />
valuable assets provided by non-citizens.<br />
$11.74B<br />
<strong>The</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> sales, property, and state tax<br />
per year paid by undocumented immigrants.<br />
8 million<br />
<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> non-citizens contributing<br />
to the workforce.<br />
$551.6B<br />
<strong>The</strong> amount that the country would lose in<br />
economic activity if all unauthorized<br />
immigrants were removed.
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION<br />
Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is a national nonpr<strong>of</strong>it that is dedicated<br />
to reducing the use <strong>of</strong> incarceration and the justice system by<br />
promoting fair and effective policies. JPI staff includes Paul Ashton,<br />
Jeremy Kittredge, Olivia Martinez, Marc Schindler, Jamille<br />
White, Keith Wallington, and Jason Ziedenberg.<br />
WRITTEN BY<br />
Jeremy Kittredge<br />
RESEARCH INTERNS<br />
Amanda Pierson, Mahalia Thomas, Chelsea Voron<strong>of</strong>f<br />
DESIGNED BY<br />
Mahalia Thomas<br />
This flipbook would not have been possible without the generous<br />
support <strong>of</strong> the Open Society Foundation and independent<br />
donors to JPI.