Press Releases

This afternoon, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing entitled, “The Release of Criminal Detainees by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Policy or Politics?” At the hearing, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement during his opening remarks:

“The title of today’s hearing—‘The Release of Criminal Detainees by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Policy or Politics?’—is somewhat misleading. 

“First, we learned at a recent hearing before the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee that 72% of the people released had no criminal record at all.  Another 21% had convictions for one or two misdemeanors only. Unless Director Morton tells us something different today, that means 93% of the people released by ICE were non-criminals or low-level offenders.

“Second, the title of the hearing asks whether this was motivated by policy or politics, but I don’t believe it was either. I don’t believe it was policy, because we have no reason to think someone sat down and decided to release thousands on detainees without a reason.  Remember:  this agency over the past five years has consistently set deportation and detention records.  I also don’t believe this is about politics.  The president’s top legislative priority is enacting comprehensive immigration reform.  I share the president’s goal.  The American people share the president’s goal.  And I know a growing majority of members of Congress support that goal.  This discussion does not advance that goal, so I don’t see how it could be motivated by politics.

“So why did the agency release more than 2,000 people from custody in February?  Based on what we have learned, it seems this was motivated by the over-zealous use of detention in late 2012 combined with poor communication between the people in charge of ICE’s budget and the people in charge of its enforcement operations. Why do I say that?  Because ICE is funded by appropriations to detain an average of 34,000 people per day over a fiscal year.  That comes at a daily cost of about $122 per bed.  But from October through December of 2012,  ICE regularly detained well over 35,000 people per day.  ICE nearly hit 37,000 detainees on some days.

“Not only did this mean ICE was paying for more detention beds, but it was paying more overtime, more fuel costs for additional transportation, and more of everything else required for detention.  Those secondary costs bring the real cost of detention closer to $164 per person per day and explain why ICE was maybe $100 million in the red.  ICE tried to put the brakes on all of that spending when its Chief Financial Officer figured out that the agency was burning through its money faster than its budget would allow.  In early January, the agency was on pace to run out of money for Custody Operations by March 9—more than 18 days before the continuing resolution expires on March 27.  ICE seems to have had no choice but to release some detainees to bring its spending in check. 

“Third, I want to remind everyone that Congress funds cost-effective alternatives to detention for a reason.  We should place good candidates into alternatives to detention whenever possible and not just when we are forced to do so by budgetary constraints. It should tell us something that in a three-week period, Director Morton identified more than 2,000 detainees who would not pose any danger to the public if they were released. Not one of these people was required by law to be in detention.  And, 93% were non-criminals or low-level offenders who probably never served prison time for their criminal convictions.  We need to ask ourselves what they were doing in immigration detention in the first place if cost-effective alternatives are at our disposal.

“I hope Director Morton will explain whether it makes sense, from a law enforcement perspective or from the perspective of fiscal responsibility, to require him to keep a certain number of people in custody on any given day.

•   We don’t require the Bureau of Prisons to maintain a minimum average daily population.

•   We don’t require the U.S. Marshals Service to maintain a minimum average daily population.

•   And I have yet to find a state or local law enforcement agency that sets such requirements.

“It makes no sense that we would require ICE to maintain a minimum average daily population. I hope we can reconsider this apparent mandate in the future and I thank Director Morton for his testimony today.”

###