How did the Secure Communities program function and what role did it play in ICE referrals during 2009–2014?
Executive summary
Secure Communities was an automated biometrics-sharing program that routed fingerprints taken at local jails through the FBI to DHS databases so Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could identify removable noncitizens; it expanded rapidly from a small pilot in 2008 to nationwide implementation by early 2013 and was a major driver of interior removals through 2014 [1] [2] [3]. Between 2008 and 2014 the policy framework and data sharing behind Secure Communities contributed to hundreds of thousands of ICE referrals and interior deportations, even as critics argued the program swept up non-criminals and masked operational costs and civil‑liberties problems [3] [2] [4].
1. How the program worked: automated fingerprints, three-way checks
At booking, local jails transmitted arrestees’ fingerprints to the FBI as part of routine criminal background checks; under Secure Communities the FBI automatically forwarded those prints to DHS so ICE could check them against immigration (IDENT/TECS) databases, and ICE received matching “hits” that generated notifications to local jails and ICE field offices [1] [2] [5]. The program relied on established biometric interoperability between FBI criminal systems and DHS immigration systems, and internal ICE Standard Operating Procedures described the routing of response messages and how matches would be escalated for potential enforcement action [6] [1].
2. Rapid rollout and scale between 2009–2014
What began as a pilot in 2008 expanded through 2009–2011 via memoranda and agency agreements so that by January 22, 2013 Secure Communities was fully implemented across all 3,181 U.S. jurisdictions and territories, after millions of fingerprint submissions and large congressional appropriations to scale the effort [1] [7] [2]. ICE itself reported millions of submissions and hundreds of thousands of database matches by 2011, and budgetary lines in FY2009–FY2010 provided significant funding to support that expansion [2] [7].
3. The program’s role in ICE referrals and removals
Secure Communities became a principal conduit for ICE to learn about immigrants in local custody and to initiate interior enforcement: analysts estimate the program accounted for the majority of “interior” removals by 2014, with roughly 75,000 removals tied to the program in that year and cumulative removals from 2008–2014 in the hundreds of thousands [3]. Matches led ICE to decide whether to issue detainers, transfer custody, and place individuals into removal proceedings; CAP (Criminal Alien Program) officers frequently followed up Secure Communities “hits” with interviews and transfers to ICE custody [1] [8].
4. Who was referred — criminals, minor offenders, and non-criminals
ICE presented Secure Communities as targeting serious criminals, but multiple analyses and advocacy groups found a large share of referrals involved people arrested for minor infractions or traffic offenses and many with no criminal history, with sites showing large proportions of nonviolent or noncriminal cases among those referred to ICE [4] [9] [10]. Empirical summaries show that a substantial portion of removals initiated under the program were not for violent offenses, raising debates about public‑safety justifications for broad interior enforcement [3] [4].
5. Controversies, transparency gaps, and competing narratives
Opponents charged that Secure Communities effectively deputized local jails as immigration data collection sites, that DHS misrepresented voluntariness while rescinding some local agreements, and that the agency limited transparency through non‑disclosure provisions — claims supported by reporting of suspended agreements, disputed opt‑out language, and task‑force criticism of the program’s lack of clarity and accountability [4] [7]. Supporters and DHS emphasized improved identification of removable aliens and operational interoperability, while critics warned of civil‑liberties harms, mistaken citizen identifications early on, and uncertain evidence that removals produced public‑safety gains [11] [2] [3].
6. Outcome and policy arc by the end of 2014
By late 2014 the program’s operational posture was suspended by DHS policy and replaced by Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) that sought to narrow enforcement focus, reflecting political and legal pushback after six years of expansion; nevertheless, data and later analyses underline that Secure Communities had already reshaped ICE’s interior referral pipeline and accounted for tens of thousands of deportations annually by 2014 [1] [3] [7]. Public records and FOIA SOPs document the mechanics and decision points, but limitations remain in linking every removal uniquely to Secure Communities versus other ICE programs like 287(g) and CAP, which often operated alongside and interacted with the fingerprint‑match pipeline [8] [6].