What legal authorities and programs did ICE use for removals during 2009–2017 (e.g., Secure Communities, Priority Enforcement Program)?

1. ERO: The administrative backbone for interior removals

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) was the ICE component charged with managing identification, arrest, detention and removal operations in the interior of the United States, operating custody management, removal coordination and national targeting and fugitive-operations units that generated leads and executed arrests ^[1]. ERO’s manuals and annual reports describe how its Removal Division coordinates with the Department of State and international partners to execute deportations after final orders, and how the agency manages detention capacity and custody policies to enable removals ^{[1] [6]}.

2. 287(g): deputizing local police to enforce immigration law

Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE provided training and formal agreements that authorized state and local law enforcement to identify, process and, where appropriate, hold immigrants for ICE during routine policing activities—a long-standing cooperative mechanism for generating interior arrests and detainers ^{[2] [3]}. ICE itself described 287(g) as one component of its broader ICE “ACCESS” cooperative programs used to expand the agency’s reach through local partners ^[2].

3. Criminal Alien Program, Fugitive Operations and targeting centers

ICE used specialized internal programs to prioritize removals. The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) focused on apprehending noncitizens with criminal convictions, while Fugitive Operations and targeting centers—such as the Law Enforcement Support Center and the National Criminal Analysis and Targeting Center—provided analytical and operational support to locate and arrest people subject to removal ^[1]. ICE’s data and detainer filings tracked which program produced an arrest; TRAC and ICE records show CAP and 287(g) were commonly cited program tags on detainers and custody records ^[3].

4. Detainers, warrants and expedited procedures

A primary operational tool was the detainer (Form I-247), a request to local jails to notify ICE before releasing a person and briefly hold them so ICE could assume custody—ICE and oversight groups have used detainers as a key indicator of interior enforcement activity ^[3]. ICE also relied on administrative warrants (I-200/I-205) and expedited-removal authorities under federal statutes (Title 8) to finalize removals once the legal prerequisites and foreign country acceptance were in place ^{[7] [5] [8]}.

5. Shifts in priorities and the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP)

Policy direction shifted over this period: ICE and DHS moved enforcement priorities several times, and the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) was implemented around FY2015 to reframe whom ICE targeted—PEP emphasized convicted criminals and other prioritized categories and altered how detainers and transfers were used ^[4]. Oversight reports note that these priority changes impacted arrest and removal totals and that ICE’s own public reporting and categorization evolved as policies shifted ^{[4] [9]}.

6. Scale, limits and reporting caveats

Removals from the interior declined in later years of the period—analysts report average removals of roughly 155,000 per year in FY2009–16 and a fall to about 81,000 in FY2017–20—while ICE data systems, database migrations and definitional choices (e.g., when detainers are recorded or when “book-ins” are counted) complicate longitudinal comparisons ^{[8] [10] [3]}. Independent oversight, such as GAO reporting, has flagged gaps in ICE’s public reporting on detentions and emphasized that shifting policies (2019–21) further altered enforcement posture, underscoring that program names and priority lists matter for outcomes ^[9].