Skip to main content
Log in

Local implementation of U.S. federal immigration programs: context, control, and the problems of intergovernmental implementation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scholars contend that presidents exert some influence over the implementation of national policy. Yet, prior research has overlooked the importance of local context, specifically socio-political conditions, and how it can shape an agency’s response to executive-level guidance. We examine the effect of local context on county-level immigration removals by ICE agents from 2013 through 2018. We predict local removals starting with the Secure Communities program, continuing under Obama’s two-year Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), and up through Trump’s zero-tolerance policies. Obama-era executive guidance, which advised agents to target only dangerous criminal immigrants, did lead to a significant national decline in total removals. However, conservative localities continued to remove large numbers, even during PEP. Notably, the difference between conservative and liberal communities was largest for non-criminal immigrant removals. Despite Obama’s guidance to focus on dangerous immigrants, ICE agents continued to remove undocumented immigrants without criminal records from conservative U.S. counties. Our analysis indicates street-level agents are most responsive to chief-executive direction in the absence of local-level opposition to top-down demands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. EO 13768: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/02/21/qa-dhs-implementation-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united-states (accessed 2/12/20).

  2. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) oversees enforcement at border, posts of entry, and checkpoints within the 100-mile border zone: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol (accessed 3/10/19).

  3. We use “removal,” the legal term used by ICE. “Deportation” is an old term formally used by the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service (Law 2014).

  4. Crimes need not be too serious to lead to removal. Any crime subject to a one-year jail sentence – even if the sentence is suspended—can be subject to removal. This includes individuals who were convicted or pled guilty to rather petty offenses, e.g., forging a signature on a traffic ticket (McLeod 2012).

  5. “Secure Communities.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities/ (accessed 9/23/11).

  6. IIRIRA (1996) established 287(g) (Rodríquez et al., 2010, 5–6).

  7. ICE mostly enforces S-Comm through county-level jails (Chand and Schreckhise 2015).

  8. S.744—Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744 (accessed 2/24/20).

  9. Johnson’s guidance stated all Priority 1 immigrants were removable and only individuals in Priority 2 subsections (a) and (b). These latter two subsections would include some misdemeanors such as domestic violence or driving under the influence. See Johnson (2014b) for all offenses in these categories: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf (accessed 2/26/20).

  10. ICE began using new request for hold forms, replacing detainers, in June 2015. See ICE’s archived webpage for PEP: https://www.ice.gov/pep (accessed 2/26/20).

  11. Section "Discussion and conclusion" of EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united-states/ (accessed 2/26/20).

  12. “Secure Communities: Overview,” https://www.ice.gov/secure-communities (accessed 10/21/17).

  13. White House Office of the Press Secretary, Nov. 20, 2014: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-President-address-nation-immigration (accessed 5/15/22).

  14. ICE Union’s press release on the vote: http://iceunion.org/download/286-287-press-release-pd-memo.pdf (accessed 2/24/20).

  15. Because the distribution of the crime rates and population across jurisdictions was heavily skewed, we use natural logs.

  16. Because most counties have zero or few removals, a variable that measured county-level removals per capita would also be heavily skewed, rendering OLS models bias. The skewness persists even when examining a removal rate that consists of the number of removals per foreign born resident in each county.

  17. Due to computational difficulties, our numerous efforts to render models that examined state-level effects were unsuccessful. Upon the advice of an anonymous reviewer, we included in our models a region variable that might capture some of these effects Although we found some regional effects, including the region variable did not substantively alter the findings from our models presented below. The results of these models that include the region variable are included in Appendix B.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel E. Chand.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Appendix 1: Summary statistics

Variable

Mean

Std. Dev

Min.

Max.

Observations

Total removals

Overall

22.5076

154.2020

0

5407

N = 18,786

Between

 

147.4564

0

3635.3330

n = 3131

Within

 

45.1735

− 1323.1590

2482.3410

T = 6

Non-criminal removals

 

Overall

1.6008

14.0831

0

764

N = 18,786

Between

 

11.6128

0

338.3333

n = 3131

Within

 

7.9694

− 192.0659

567.6008

T = 6

Level 3 Removals

  

Overall

8.9888

66.9278

0

3119

N = 18,786

Between

 

63.1492

0

2015.5

n = 3131

Within

 

22.1938

− 926.3445

1112.489

T = 6

Level 2 Removals

Overall

2.9982

22.8840

0

1127

N = 18,786

Between

 

21.4422

0

620.3333

n = 3131

Within

 

8.0021

− 217.6684

509.6649

T = 6

Level 1 Removals

Overall

8.9197

60.8304

0

2053

N = 18,786

Between

 

58.8444

0

1496.333

n = 3131

Within

 

15.4465

− 507.2469

743.0864

T = 6

PEP

Overall

0.5000

0.5000

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0000

0.5

0.5

n = 3131

Within

 

0.5000

0

1

T = 6

Conservatism

Overall

0.6146

0.1496

0.0833

0.9479

N = 18,648

Between

 

0.1496

0.0833

0.9479

n = 3108

Within

 

0.0000

0.6146

0.6146

T = 6

Border county

Overall

0.0073

0.0854

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0854

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0000

0.0073459

0.0073459

T = 6

287 (g) MOA

Overall

0.0092

0.0955

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0922

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0251

− 0.490791

0.8425423

T = 6

LEA budget

Overall

201.4140

181.5511

1.516127

3707.451

N = 18,629

Between

 

181.9207

1.516127

3707.451

n = 3109

Within

 

0.0000

201.414

201.414

Bar = 5.99196

Years active

Overall

4.2003

1.9280

0

9

N = 18,752

Between

 

0.8971

2.5

8

n = 3127

Within

 

1.7078

1.700299

6.700299

Bar = 5.9968

%Hispanic

Overall

9.0767

13.5824

0.2008032

96.27631

N = 18,786

Between

 

13.5771

0.4617246

96.0753

n = 3131

Within

 

0.4392

− 6.604667

12.95019

T = 6

Crime (ln)t−1

 

Overall

3.0605

0.6263

0

6.117783

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.5804

0

5.998533

n = 3131

Within

 

0.2355

0.0716438

6.238304

T = 6

Population (ln)t−1

Overall

10.2730

1.4731

4.454347

16.13008

N = 18,786

Between

 

1.4732

4.676729

16.12341

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0178

9.962205

10.50889

T = 6

Unemployment

Overall

6.1347

2.5204

1.1

27.4

N = 18,786

Between

 

1.0753

3.083333

18.1

n = 3131

Within

 

2.2795

− 1.482013

24.80132

T = 6

Median income

Overall

47.8399

12.5053

0

136.191

N = 18,786

Between

 

6.3598

26.47083

121.3978

n = 3131

Within

 

10.7679

1.669738

128.5096

T = 6

ICE CDFt−1

Overall

0.0031

0.0555

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0540

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0126

-0.330246

0.8364207

T = 6

ICE IGSA publict-1

     

Overall

0.0378

0.1908

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.1792

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0656

− 0.795486

0.8711807

T = 6

ICE IGSA privatet-1

     

Overall

0.0042

0.0647

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0607

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0225

− 0.829128

0.8375386

T = 6

ICE othert−1

Overall

0.0266

0.1610

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.1556

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0413

− 0.806718

0.8599489

T = 6

BOP publict−1

Overall

0.0270

0.1621

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.1618

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0089

− 0.473012

0.5269882

T = 6

BOP privatet−1

Overall

0.0034

0.0583

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0520

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0263

− 0.829927

0.6700735

T = 6

USMS publict−1

Overall

0.0328

0.1781

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.1717

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0473

− 0.800543

0.8661237

T = 6

USMS privatet−1

Overall

0.0037

0.0605

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.0582

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0166

− 0.82966

0.6703396

T = 6

State publict−1

Overall

0.2022

0.4016

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.4017

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0000

0.2021718

0.2021718

T = 6

State privatet−1

Overall

0.0517

0.2215

0

1

N = 18,786

Between

 

0.2215

0

1

n = 3131

Within

 

0.0000

0.0517407

0.0517407

T = 6

Appendix 2: Models with the variable region

See Tables

Table 3 Removals by county, FY2013-2018 with region

3 and

Table 4 Removals by category with region

4.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schreckhise, W.D., Chand, D.E. Local implementation of U.S. federal immigration programs: context, control, and the problems of intergovernmental implementation. Policy Sci 56, 797–823 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09511-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09511-8

Keywords

Navigation