ACLU Sues ICE Over Its Deliberately-Broken Immigrant 'Risk Assessment' Software
from the can't-really-call-it-an-'option'-if-there-are-no-alternatives dept
A couple of years ago, a Reuters investigation uncovered another revamp of immigration policies under President Trump. ICE has a Risk Classification Assessment Tool that decides whether or not arrested immigrants can be released on bail or their own recognizance. The algorithm had apparently undergone a radical transformation under the new administration, drastically decreasing the number of detainees who could be granted release. The software now recommends detention in almost every case, no matter what mitigating factors are fed to the assessment tool.
ICE is now being sued for running software that declares nearly 100% of detained immigrants too risky to be released pending hearings. The ACLU's lawsuit [PDF] opens with some disturbing stats that show how ICE has rigged the system to keep as many people detained as possible.
According to data obtained by the New York Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act, from 2013 to June 2017, approximately 47% of those deemed to be low risk by the government were granted release. From June 2017 to September 2019, that figure plummeted to 3%. This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses. The federal government’s sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course—in an unlawful trend that is getting worse.
Despite there being plenty of evidence that immigrants commit fewer criminal acts than natural-born citizens, the administration adopted a "No-Release Policy." That led directly to ICE tinkering with its software -- one that was supposed to assess risk factors when making detention determinations. ICE may as well just skip this step in the process since it's only going to give ICE (and the administration) the answer it wants: detention without bond. ICE agents can ask for a second opinion on detention from a supervisor, but the documents obtained by the ACLU show supervisors depart from detention recommendations less than 1% of the time.
The negative effects of this indefinite detention are real. The lawsuit points out zero-risk detainees can see their lives destroyed before they're allowed anything that resembles due process.
Once denied release under the new policy, people remain unnecessarily incarcerated in local jails for weeks or even months before they have a meaningful opportunity to seek release in a hearing before an Immigration Judge. While waiting for those hearings, those detained suffer under harsh conditions of confinement akin to criminal incarceration. While incarcerated, they are separated from families, friends, and communities, and they risk losing their children, their jobs, and their homes. Because of inadequate medical care and conditions in the jails, unmet medical and mental-health needs often lead to serious and at times irreversible consequences.
When they do finally get to see a judge, nearly 40% of them are released on bond. ICE treats nearly 100% of detained immigrants as dangerous. Judges -- judges employed by the DOJ and appointed by the Attorney General -- clearly don't agree with the agency's rigged assessment system.
There will always be those who say, "Well, don't break the law." These aren't criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings where the detained are tossed into criminal facilities until they're able to see a judge. This steady stripping of options began under the Obama administration but accelerated under Trump and his no-release policy.
ICE began to alter its custody determinations process in 2015, modifying its risk-assessment tool so that it could no longer recommend individuals be given the opportunity for release on bond. In mid-2017, ICE then removed the tool’s ability to recommend release on recognizance. As a result, the assessment tool—on which ICE offices across the country rely— can only make one substantive recommendation: detention without bond.
The ACLU is hoping to have a class action lawsuit certified that would allow it to hold ICE responsible for violating rights en masse, including the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Since ICE is no longer pretending to be targeting the "worst of the worst," the agency and its deliberately-broken risk assessment tool are locking up immigrants who have lived here for an average of sixteen years -- people who've added to their communities, held down jobs, and raised families. These are the people targeted by ICE and it is ensuring that it is these people who are thrown into prisons and jails until their hearings, tearing apart their lives and families while denying them the rights extended to them by our Constitution.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: algorithms, bail, ice, immigrants, risk assessment, software
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Other Tech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Tech
Ugh, you Trumptards and your "illegal" nonsense. Seeking asylum is not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Tech
You really should read the actual laws that apply in this case before implying someone else is retarded. Passing through one safe country to seek asylum in another very much is illegal. It's every bit as sleazy as forum-shopping in a court case, for all the same reasons, and unlike forum-shopping, it actually is against applicable law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other Tech
"Passing through one safe country to seek asylum in another very much is illegal."
Interesting ...
Please explain how the laws in one country are applicable in some other country.
There are several countries on the us do not go to list, which one are you referring to here where it was illegal to go there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Tech
Because we're talking about international law here, treaties that have been agreed to by multiple countries. If you're a legitimate refugee seeking refuge, you are required to stop in the first safe country you come to. Passing through it to some other country is illegal forum-shopping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Tech
If you're a legitimate refugee seeking refuge, you are required to stop in the first safe country you come to.
Are you arguing that Mexico is safe?
Because all the trumptards on my facebook feed were telling me not to get abducted or killed when I stopped in Mexico for vacation last year. A couple called me an idiot for even bothering to travel to such a "hellhole" as they so un-eloquently put it.
But here you are arguing it's good enough for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Tech
I'm sure you can cite the applicable treaty.
And not the Dublin Regulation, which only affects refugees within the European Union; nor the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which only applies to refugees who are passing through Canada to claim asylum in the US, or vice versa. I'm talking about a law that would apply to refugees passing through Mexico to seek asylum in the US.
So... Which "international law" are you referring to that would apply in this case? Which "treaties that have been agreed to by multiple countries?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Tech
"we're talking about international law here"
I thought the topic was about Deliberately-Broken Immigrant 'Risk Assessment' Software. How does this software address international law and why would it bother to, not like nations actually adhere to any of what they say or "agree" to. It's laughable.
If you are running away from almost certain torture and death do you really have the presence of mind to go to your local library and research the accepted ways of seeking shelter elsewhere?
I really doubt any of the immigrants at our border begging for help know anything at all about this forum-shopping problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other Tech
You really should read the actual laws that apply in this case before implying someone else is retarded.
There is a ridiculously high probability of a trump supporter being retarded, regardless of what they're quoting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal
So if illegals can't bother to follow the rules for entry into the country, why should anyone assume that they would return for a court hearing? I wouldn't count on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal
If they haven't had a court hearing, why should anyone assume that they broke the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internal situation in the US isn't really great for immigrant populations right now but I don't think it's ICE's fault. Maybe things can improve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"situation in the US isn't really great for immigrant populations right now"
Most of those who populate the US are immigrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somehow they always do. It helps The Narrative. (See also: the protestation that these guys did nothing wrong, when they're breaking the law simply by being here. Software Recommends Lawbreakers Be Locked Up. News At 11!)
It's a bit sad to see how far we've fallen since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are Legal immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants. No one has a right to come to this country. Just like no one has a right to come to any other country. A country without borders is not a country.
Not only did you break the law coming into this country Illegally, now you broke another law to be put in jail where ICE can find you. Time for the boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are Legal immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants. No one has a right to come to this country. Just like no one has a right to come to any other country. A country without borders is not a country.
Are you saying the US was not a country for more than a century after it was founded, when it was perfectly legal for anyone to just come and show up? You know we only started blocking people from entering the country when people got scared about people of a different skin color showing up on our shores to help build the railroad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"No one has a right to come to this country."
Who is claiming such a right?
I thought most illegals were over staying their visa but many are of the opinion that the majority are border crossers. Well, most border crossers are fleeing violence rather than seeking a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"No one has a right to come to this country. Just like no one has a right to come to any other country. A country without borders is not a country."
So get your ass back on the Mayflower and go home where you came from, right?
I'm not sure someone whose squatting rights were bought with occupation, genocide and ethnic cleansing should be talking too loudly about what "rights" an immigrant has.
Are you saying you're fine if the Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee or Ute nations deport your ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"deliberately broken"
Weird conspiracy theory. Pretty lunatic tbh. I'll tell people from now on, if my software isn't working, it's "deliberately broken". Very glass half-full attitude there.
"Despite there being plenty of evidence that immigrants commit fewer criminal acts than natural-born citizens"
Nonsense. So, if you follow the link, you have to go down the rabbit hole to another link, and then you find:
"In each year immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives with the gap widening each decade."
Well that's true of whites too, vs blacks & other minorities, but you're simply describing the profile of success of the justice system, not the actual truth of the situation. In other words, you would not accept that because blacks have a very high incarceration rate, blacks are more criminal. You would have it that the justice system is biased. So we discredit the source of the "data" right away.
Why would the numbers be off? Illegals and legals alike are much less likely to resort to the police when they are a victim of a crime. Additionally, because gang activity is much more substantial in immigrant communities, immigrants turn to them for help instead (which actually makes for a doubled crime, since vigilantism is unlawful).
And another reason why you would see a negative correlation between immigrants and crime rates is that immigrants are highly mobile workers. And so, what happens is immigrants go to places where therre's work. And the places where there is work are obviously those places experiencing good financial conditions. Wages rise, and housewives hire nannies and cleaners. Wages rise, people add on and build new homes. Wages decline, immigrants leave (they are precisely defined as those least likely to have roots in the area, obviously).
And an important technicality, which is overlooked by most, illegals obviously have a higher rate of crime, if you count being illegal in the first place as a crime, if you discount it, then you are looking at something else, but it's a point that bears repeating, because it seems people have forgotten that it is not lawful to break a nation's laws (by definition), regardless of what is fashionable.
And let's send this missive off with an LOL:
" The requested page "/documents/pdf/Clinics/Sampson_Immigration_Contexts.pdf" could not be found. "
So yeah, not really dealing with original research here. Just the piling on of bad faith "reasoning".
And now let's resort to the silver bullet, shall we, in all cases of vampires and other superstitions. That is, did we even look at the right thing at all?
"The public focus is on the crime rates of unauthorized or illegal immigrants. The research papers above mostly include all immigrants regardless of legal status. "
So, by mixing in the most law-abiding (legals), with the least (illegals - remember, they commited a crime by definition), well, you have something utterly useless.
How dishonest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They place it at the end of the page (the second one)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As usual, the commies are liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As usual, the commies are liars."
Well, I have heard how much time donald spent in russia and on the phone with putin, he does want total control of the means of production and demands fealty. Sounds a bit like communism to me.
Oh yeah ... and he lies all the time.
I'm glad you pointed this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For one thing, if you're an Illegal, you already broke the law. Now you're arrested for something else. Clearly you need to get the boot. You have no right to be in this country. You cut the line in front of everyone else around the world that wants to come here.
Illegals suck up limited resources for those here legally and American's who should be getting them. Illegals also keep wages down low, which also hurt poor American's and Legal people here. If you are an Illegal, you have no right to be here. Don't cry to me that you may not have gotten caught for 10 years and made a life and now you're getting deported.
Come here the LEGAL way. Get in line. Jump through all the hoops. Wait for however long it takes, and when they say come on in, LEGALLY, I welcome you here!!!! You cut in front of everyone else trying to get here, You should get the boot. I welcome everyone around the world to this country that came here LEGALLY, according to the laws of this country.
A country without borders is not a country. Every country has a right to protect its borders. I've been watching the UK Show on their own Border Wars. If you hire an Illegal and are caught, $10,000 fine for each and every one of them. They take things much more serius there than we do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are these "immigrants"?
Are the detainees lawful immigrants? Illegal aliens (oh, I'm sorry, "undocumented immigrants")? Or an undifferentiated group of non-citizens? The answer to this question matters a great deal, and basic journalistic competence would have indicated you should have answered it in the article. If you know the answer but didn't say, that's outright dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who are these "immigrants"?
Well, it is Tim Cushing. What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equality
If I was accused of a crime, and at the bond hearing it was determined that there was a 90% chance that I would not show up for my trial, then I would fully expect to be held without bond. Illegal immigrants should not be granted special privileges over the citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Equality
Don't you know? They're just better than you are, ask any commie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Equality
ask any commie
Which you can find at a typical trump rally, clearly identified by the shirt they're wearing:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17656996/trump-republican-party-russia-rat her-democrat-ohio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Equality
What special privileges are being doled out? Please be specific.
If one wants to complain about the justice system in the us, that is fine and dandy - have at it because there is a lot to complain about, including bigotry.
How do they come up with these statistics? Is that from the flawed software that is the subject of this post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't want to think about it
There will always be those who say, "Well, don't break the law." These aren't criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings
Those who make this argument don't care about that difference. They don't care about treating anyone they've decided they don't need to care about with any ounce of decency. Their logic in this argument is so incredibly stupid it would treat speeding violations with the same severity as murder because both are "breaking the law".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They don't want to think about it
You forgot to add the part about them not caring if someone breaks the law if they are part of their group. This is the 'Law and Order (for you, not us)' group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you need software for this? Just print a checklist: Was the crime violent? Has the offender skipped bail before? Is the offender black? (Sarcasm, but I bet it exists in the software.)
Removes perceived bias and there's no need to expose software because the decision monikers are there for all to see (and if applicable, challenge).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't remember where I read it, but I recall that before Trump ramped up the draconian racism to 11, only around 4% of immigrants failed to show up for their hearings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not surprising if true, only an idiot and/or lunatic responds to a pending legal risk by doubling down and adding to it.
Show up and they get to argue their case and perhaps win. Don't show and they've just shot themselves in the back as they are now on the hook for the original issue that required them in court and refusing to show, which is not going to look good to a judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not my original source, but one with numbers and data:
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-check-asylum-seekers-regularly-attend-immigrati on-court-hearings
As opposed to claims from members of the Trump administration that seem to get the numbers almost exactly backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]