How did Secure Communities and the Priority Enforcement Program change ICE referrals and removals under Obama?
Executive summary
Secure Communities (S‑Comm) centralized fingerprint-sharing between local jails, the FBI, and ICE and rapidly expanded under the Obama administration, producing large numbers of interior referrals and removals that included many non‑serious offenders [1] [2]. In response to critiques about scope and community trust, DHS replaced S‑Comm with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) in late 2014 to narrow who ICE sought to transfer from local custody and to limit use of detainers, a change whose actual effect on removals remains disputed [3] [4] [5].
1. Secure Communities’ mechanism and stated purpose
Secure Communities operated by sending jail fingerprint data to federal databases so ICE could identify noncitizens in local custody, with officials framing the initiative as a tool to “identify and remove the most serious criminal offenders” and prioritize public safety [1] [2]. The program relied on automatic biometric matching rather than case‑by‑case referrals, creating a steady pipeline from local booking to federal immigration review without new arrest authority for local agencies [1].
2. Obama-era expansion and the scale of interior removals
Under President Obama the program was rapidly scaled: S‑Comm grew from a pilot to nationwide deployment goals and by early Obama years contributed to record removals and a marked rise in convictions‑linked deportations, with DHS touting that in FY2013 ICE conducted 315,943 removals and sharply increased removals of individuals with criminal convictions [1] [6] [2]. Administrations officials argued those statistics showed S‑Comm helped focus enforcement on criminals and yielded “record‑setting” removal totals [2] [6].
3. Criticisms that prompted policy change
Civil‑rights groups, local officials, and some researchers criticized S‑Comm for operating as a de facto dragnet that funneled people with minor or no convictions into removal proceedings, eroding community trust and undermining local policing cooperation [1] [5]. Those critiques—documenting deportations of people with misdemeanors or no record—were central to calls for reform and informed DHS’s decision to rethink the program’s scope [5].
4. What PEP changed in policy and practice
PEP, announced by Secretary Jeh Johnson in November 2014 and rolled out in 2015, formally replaced S‑Comm and narrowed enforcement priorities: ICE would seek transfers primarily for individuals convicted of enumerated serious offenses, gang members, or national‑security threats and would limit use of widespread detainers, requiring probable cause and conviction standards in many cases [7] [4] [3]. The stated aim was to balance public‑safety enforcement with rebuilding trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities so local agencies would not feel compelled to act as immigration agents [3].
5. Immediate effects on referrals and removals — contested and mixed evidence
Supporters of PEP argued the program reduced referrals and detainers for low‑level offenders and improved community policing; critics and some analysts countered that PEP’s tighter priorities, conviction requirement, and detainer limits led to substantially fewer transfers and removals of certain criminal noncitizens, with one analysis claiming detainer and charging documents fell roughly by half compared with 2013 levels [4] [8]. DHS and Obama officials emphasized maintained focus on serious felons even as overall interior arrests and removals shifted, but independent assessments highlight mixed compliance and measurable declines in ICE custody actions for lower‑level cases [6] [5] [8].
6. Political and institutional agendas shaping the narrative
Interpretations of the policy shift are colored by advocates’ and critics’ agendas: immigrant‑rights organizations framed PEP as a corrective that curtailed unjust removals and protected community trust [5], while immigration‑restriction groups and some law‑and‑order voices argued PEP weakened public safety by exempting more offenders and creating logistical hurdles for ICE [8]. DHS presented PEP as a middle path to focus limited resources on dangerous individuals without providing a definitive metric that isolates PEP’s direct causal impact on aggregate removal trends [3] [4].
7. Conclusion — what changed, and what remains uncertain
The Obama administration shifted from the broad biometric funnel of Secure Communities to the more targeted, priority‑based PEP, changing criteria for ICE to request transfers and limiting routine detainer reliance, which altered the mix of referrals and reduced ICE’s reach into some lower‑level cases; however, the magnitude of PEP’s effect on total removals is disputed and depends on which datasets and analytical lenses one accepts, with both DHS claims of continued focus on criminals and independent critiques of reduced removals persisting in the record [1] [3] [8] [5].