What oversight mechanisms exist in South Carolina for transfers from local jails to ICE custody and how transparent are the records?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
South Carolina transfers from local jails to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody occur largely through federal programs that link jail booking data and local agreements with ICE — most notably Section 287(g) deputations and automated fingerprint-sharing like Secure Communities — and are overseen by a patchwork of federal memoranda and ICE supervision rather than a single statewide watchdog [1] [2] [3]. Public transparency of those transfers is limited and uneven: ICE publishes some encounter and MOA data but has changed reporting categories in 2025 in ways that obscure jail-origin arrests, while state and county records and DOC “transparency” portals provide inconsistent, often incomplete visibility into who was transferred [4] [1] [5].
1. How transfers from jails to ICE custody are structured: delegation and biometrics
Local-to-federal transfers in South Carolina are enabled both by formal ICE-local agreements that deputize local corrections or officers to perform immigration functions under Section 287(g) and by biometric systems that automatically flag noncitizens when fingerprints submitted at booking are checked against DHS databases (the “Secure Communities”/biometric feed); ICE describes both the Warrant Service Officer and Jail Enforcement models for deputation and notes the automatic fingerprint sharing process used in newly activated counties [1] [2] [3].
2. Oversight mechanisms on paper: MOAs, ICE supervision, and updated program rules
Oversight is nominally built into Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) that govern 287(g) relationships and ICE supervision, with ICE stating it provides training, certification and oversight of delegated officers and that the program has been revised after past DHS audits to increase training and data collection [1] [6]. Federal recommendations to strengthen follow-up inspections and civil-rights oversight also exist in the public record, reflecting congressional and watchdog scrutiny of detention oversight nationwide [7].
3. What public reporting actually shows: partial data and categorization shifts
In practice transparency is fragmented: ICE posts MOAs and some local encounter counts, and outlets have reported county-level “encounters” drawn from ICE records (for example counts for Horry and York counties), but researchers have documented that ICE altered reporting in 2025—aggregating various criminal-alien program arrests into a generic “Custodial Arrests” category—reducing the clarity of jail-origin arrest data and complicating public tracking of transfers [8] [4] [1].
4. Local variation and the practical reality in South Carolina counties
Oversight and record visibility vary by county: some South Carolina counties (York, Lexington, Horry and others) have adopted 287(g) jail enforcement or warrant-service models and have reported encounters with ICE using different local practices, while other counties rely primarily on biometric matches and formal transfer requests from ICE, producing an uneven statewide picture [8] [9] [3].
5. Gaps, accountability concerns, and competing narratives
Independent advocates and local critics warn that the jail enforcement model blurs policing and federal immigration roles and often proceeds with scant public input, and national watchdogs document historic problems with records transfers (medical and detention files) at the moment of custody change — concerns reinforced by research showing data-category shifts that may obscure transfers — while ICE and supporters point to MOAs, training, and ICE inspections as accountability mechanisms [9] [7] [10] [6]. Reporting also suggests federal downsizing of some watchdog functions and changes in inspection practices that advocates say reduce external oversight [11] [7].
6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
The existing oversight framework in South Carolina is a mix of federal MOAs, ICE supervision and biometric data-sharing, but transparency is limited by inconsistent county reporting, ICE’s 2025 recoding of arrest categories, and variable public access to MOAs and transfer logs; the sources reviewed document procedures and many county agreements but do not provide a comprehensive, searchable statewide ledger of every local-to-ICE transfer, so definitive counts and a full audit trail are not available in the public record examined here [1] [4] [3] [5].