{"id":5116,"date":"2018-12-05T00:01:10","date_gmt":"2018-12-05T00:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jsis.washington.edu\/humanrights\/?p=5116"},"modified":"2025-08-04T10:26:48","modified_gmt":"2025-08-04T17:26:48","slug":"secret-police","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jsis.washington.edu\/humanrights\/2018\/12\/05\/secret-police\/","title":{"rendered":"Secret Police: Access to Information about Immigration Enforcement in the United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

This report was presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C. on December 5, 2018 during the Commission’s session on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders of Migrants in the United States.<\/em><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h1>\n

Immigrant rights are under assault in the contemporary United States. In a climate of open hostility to immigrants propagated at the highest levels of government, with virtually no effective oversight of the institutions afforded unprecedented resources to enforce the nation\u2019s immigration laws, the work of human rights defenders to ensure the compatibility of immigration enforcement with international human rights standards is more urgent than ever. Yet this work is rendered ever more difficult by growing secrecy surrounding the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the two primary sub-agencies of the Department of Homeland Security charged with immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n

The present report summarizes the experience of the University of Washington Center for Human Rights in seeking to obtain information about immigration enforcement, placing this work in the larger context of nationwide access-to-information efforts in this sector. We begin by documenting patterns of secrecy and misinformation in immigration enforcement, then illustrate their impacts on human rights defenders, and conclude by offering recommendations for improvement.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h1>\n

In recent years, the University of Washington Center for Human Rights has developed a specialized research team dedicated to the use of access to information laws for human rights purposes. Since 2011, we have filed 633 of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests of 8 agencies of the federal government; in addition, we have worked with partners to file access to information requests in both El Salvador and Argentina. We began this work seeking information about crimes against humanity committed in the context of El Salvador\u2019s armed conflict, but in early 2017 began to apply these same skills to questions emerging in the context of contemporary immigration debates in the United States. Since that time, we have filed a total of 189 requests for information about the US federal government\u2019s immigration enforcement practices in our state and region, using both federal and state public information laws.<\/p>\n

In addition, we analyze other datasets of public records to produce insights about immigration enforcement in our state. We have obtained and analyzed records from over 250 district court cases of prosecution under federal immigration charges, and are currently analyzing a large dataset<\/a><\/u>[1]<\/sup><\/a> containing 14 years of records of federal prosecution for immigration-related crimes in our state.<\/p>\n

We conduct this work in close partnership with local immigrant rights defenders, including grassroots organizations such as the Northwest Detention Center Resistance headed by Maru Mora Villalpando, advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations; the trends they report and the research needs they identify shape the lines of research we pursue.<\/p>\n

In 1967, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was established as the preeminent mechanism of open government in the United States. The law grants anyone the right to request access to records of the agencies of the U.S. federal government, and mandates that agencies disclose the requested information unless it falls into nine categories of information exempt from disclosure. The law places the onus on agencies to justify redacting materials or refusing requests, mandating that they cite the relevant exemption category when declining to provide access to all or part of a record; petitioners may sue in court if they believe these exemptions have been applied in error. While highly imperfect, FOIA remains a vital tool for transparency in the United States. In addition, each of the fifty states has also adopted its own open records laws to provide access to the records of state agencies.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, UWCHR\u2019s experience seeking information from U.S. federal government agencies regarding the practices of immigration enforcement has not been a positive one. While we have received the files requested in some of our FOIA cases, far more frequently our efforts have been stymied by responses that are either nonexistent (our requests have gone unacknowledged); overdue (agencies have indicated that the documents are forthcoming by a certain date, only to allow that date to pass without release of documentation or an explanation of further delays); or capricious (exemptions to mandatory disclosure have been inappropriately invoked to avoid transparency). As a result, on September 21, 2018, the University of Washington filed suit under FOIA in federal court against the Department of Homeland Security, citing its sub-agencies Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as defendants.[2]<\/sup><\/a> We are still awaiting their response to our suit.<\/p>\n

Regrettably, our experience in this regard has not been unique. Both ICE and CBP routinely seek to conceal knowledge of their operations from the public. Their anti-transparency practices are not limited to stonewalling FOIA requests: the agencies have been shown to provide false information to the media and elected government officials; to structure institutional relationships in ways that inhibit access to information; and to retaliate against those who expose their lies. For all of these reasons, we believe they are effectively operating as a secret police<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This report tackles secrecy in contemporary immigration enforcement in five chapters:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Misleading proactive disclosures by ICE and CBP <\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n
  2. Inadequate responses to FOIA requests <\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n
  3. Specific institutional arrangements thwart access to information<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n
  4. Impact of secrecy on the work of human rights defenders<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n
  5. Conclusions and recommendations<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    1. Misleading proactive disclosures by ICE and CBP<\/a><\/h1>\n

    ICE and CBP proactively disclose information to the public through regular reports issued by the agencies about their operations, and public statements made by officials in response to media inquiries. Both types of information are often reported in a misleading manner, and released in ways that impede independent verification. Typically, these distortions appear intended to exaggerate the criminality of the immigrant population.<\/p>\n

    For example, ICE\u2019s annual Enforcement and Removals Report typically presents a picture of operations that target dangerous criminals; their most recent report<\/a><\/u> describes the agency as \u201cidentif[ying], arrest[ing], and remov[ing] aliens who present a danger to national security or a threat to public safety, or who otherwise undermine border control and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a> This report claims that in FY 2017 ICE arrested 2608 criminals, and 768 noncriminals, for a total of 3376 arrests in the Seattle area of responsibility, which covers Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. It claims to have removed (or deported) 2,202 criminals, and 1,795 noncriminals, for a total of 3,995. Yet when we dig into the data it draws from, a different picture emerges.<\/p>\n

    Under FOIA, UWCHR requested a breakdown of what specific crimes are at stake, and whether the individuals in question were actually convicted, or merely suspected by ICE, of committing those crimes, in ICE\u2019s Seattle area of responsibility during FY 2017 and FY 2018. In response, ICE provided us with a spreadsheet<\/a><\/u> listing each type of crime and the number of criminal charges and convictions of each crime for FY 2017 and FY 2018. A closer look at the data shows that ICE appears to be double-counting criminality by counting charges as well as<\/em> convictions, and may be counting multiple charges or convictions against a single person as separate \u201ccriminals.\u201d<\/p>\n

    As a result, the total number of crimes exceeds the total number of individuals they report having arrested, making it impossible to discern what proportion of ICE\u2019s so-called \u201ccriminals\u201d were a) ever convicted, as opposed to simply accused of crimes; or b) involved in crimes that represent genuine threats to public safety, as opposed to minor crimes such as traffic violations. See Figure 1<\/strong>, below:<\/p>\n

    \"Figure<\/a><\/p>\n

    Figure 1 – Excerpt of spreadsheet released by ICE regarding criminal charges and convictions for FY 2017- FY 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Along similar lines, regular media releases have been found to be misleading in ways that generate an impression of exaggerated immigrant criminality. For example:<\/p>\n