Report on Immigration Enforcement, Criminal Justice, and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Policy Context and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This report analyzes the intersection of immigration enforcement and the criminal justice system in the United States, specifically through the lens of the Secure Communities (S-Comm) program. The S-Comm program mandated data-sharing between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, raising significant concerns regarding its alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The primary critique was that the policy would exacerbate inequalities by promoting racial profiling, directly contravening the principles of inclusive and just societies.

Research Analysis: Evaluating S-Comm’s Impact on SDG Targets

A study utilizing arrest and case processing data from Texas and California between 2006 and 2012 was conducted to assess the impacts of the S-Comm program. The research evaluated whether the policy’s implementation led to discriminatory practices that would undermine progress toward key SDG targets.

Key Research Questions

• Did the S-Comm program increase racial and ethnic disparities in arrest rates, specifically targeting the Latino population, thereby conflicting with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)?
• Did the program alter judicial outcomes for non-US citizens, affecting the commitment to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for equal access to justice for all?

Key Findings in the Context of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

Impact on Racial and Ethnic Disparities

The analysis of arrest data from Texas and California revealed no statistically significant increase in arrests of Latinos following the implementation of S-Comm. This finding suggests that the policy did not directly result in heightened racial profiling by local law enforcement.

• The percentage of arrests involving Latinos remained stable across felony, misdemeanor, and traffic offenses.
• This outcome indicates that, in this specific regard, the policy did not exacerbate inequality along racial lines, a core concern of SDG 10.

Impact on Disparities based on Citizenship Status

While racial disparities in arrests were not observed, the study identified a significant negative trend concerning inequality based on citizenship status. This directly challenges the objective of SDG 10.2, which aims to promote the inclusion of all, irrespective of origin or other status.

• In Texas, the likelihood that an arrest would result in incarceration increased substantially for non-US citizen defendants after S-Comm was introduced.
• This disparity indicates that the justice system began producing unequal outcomes based on citizenship, a clear deviation from the principles of SDG 10.

Implications for SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Access to Justice and Institutional Accountability

The findings demonstrate a tangible impact on the functioning of judicial institutions, raising concerns about their alignment with SDG 16. The goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels is compromised when legal outcomes are influenced by an individual’s citizenship status.

1. The increased incarceration rate for non-citizens suggests that prosecutors and judges may have used their discretion to funnel this group into federal deportation proceedings, rather than focusing solely on the criminal case at hand.
2. This practice undermines SDG 16.3 (Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all).
3. It also suggests that the S-Comm program incentivized a shift in the priorities of criminal justice institutions, moving away from equitable punishment and reintegration.

Undermining Reintegration and Inclusive Societies

The tendency to incarcerate non-citizens more frequently undermines another key aspect of SDG 16: the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies. Incarceration, particularly when it supplants rehabilitative sanctions, hinders an individual’s ability to reintegrate into society.

• The study notes that officials were less likely to grant non-incarceration sanctions like probation or work release to non-citizens.
• This approach prevents social and economic reintegration, which is also linked to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and conflicts with the goal of building inclusive institutions.

Conclusion and Recommendations for SDG Alignment

The S-Comm program, while not found to have intensified racial profiling in arrests, created significant disparities in the legal system based on citizenship status. This outcome demonstrates a failure to uphold the principles of SDG 10 and SDG 16. By treating non-citizens more punitively, the policy weakened the commitment to equal justice and inclusive institutions.

Policy Recommendations

1. Comprehensive Impact Assessments: Future policies linking criminal justice and immigration must be rigorously evaluated for their impact on all forms of inequality, including race, ethnicity, and citizenship status, to ensure full alignment with SDG 10.
2. Strengthen Judicial Safeguards: Measures must be implemented to ensure that judicial and prosecutorial discretion is exercised without bias toward a defendant’s citizenship status, thereby upholding the mandate of SDG 16 for equal access to justice.
3. Promote Reintegrative Justice: Justice systems should prioritize non-punitive, reintegrative sanctions where appropriate for all individuals, regardless of citizenship, to support the development of inclusive societies as envisioned in SDG 16 and economic well-being under SDG 8.

Identified Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is central to the article, which investigates whether an immigration enforcement policy (S-Comm) created or exacerbated inequalities within the US criminal justice system. The analysis focuses specifically on potential disparities based on race (Latinos) and citizenship status (non-US citizens), which directly aligns with SDG 10’s aim to reduce inequalities within and among countries.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article is fundamentally an evaluation of justice institutions and their policies. It examines how the S-Comm program, a policy integrating local and federal law enforcement, affects the principles of justice, fairness, and non-discrimination. The research assesses the accountability of these institutions and whether they provide equal access to justice for all, which is the core of SDG 16.

Specific SDG Targets

1. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity, origin… or other status.

     The article directly addresses this target by examining the treatment of individuals based on their ethnicity (Latino) and citizenship status (“non-US citizen defendants”). The finding that non-citizens faced a “substantially increased” likelihood of incarceration demonstrates a form of exclusion from equal treatment within the justice system, which is a key aspect of social inclusion.

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices.

     The research is a direct evaluation of a policy, S-Comm, to determine if it is discriminatory in practice. The article analyzes “inequalities of outcome” by comparing arrest and incarceration rates. While it found no evidence of discriminatory arrest practices against Latinos, it did find that the policy led to an unequal outcome in Texas, where “court authorities… began treating noncitizens differently and incarcerating them more frequently.”

   • Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

     The S-Comm program is a migration enforcement policy. The article’s analysis of its unintended consequences—namely, the increased incarceration of non-citizens—contributes to the understanding required for creating “well-managed migration policies.” The findings raise questions about whether a policy that leads to such disparities can be considered “responsible.”

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

     This target is addressed by the article’s core finding. The increased likelihood of incarceration for non-citizens in Texas following the implementation of S-Comm suggests a failure to “ensure equal access to justice for all.” The article notes that judges may have seen “incarceration as an efficient way to funnel noncitizens into deportation proceedings,” indicating a deviation from equal justice based on citizenship status.

   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

     The entire study is an effort to assess whether the S-Comm policy is discriminatory. The research explicitly tests the hypothesis that the policy would lead to “racial profiling, particularly of Latinos.” While this specific hypothesis was not supported by the data on arrests, the study did find that the policy was consequential for non-US citizens, leading to discriminatory outcomes in punishment, thereby providing critical analysis for the enforcement of non-discriminatory policies.

Implied or Mentioned Indicators

1. Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Percentage of arrests involving a specific ethnic group (Latinos)

     The article uses this as a direct indicator to measure racial profiling. Figure 1 explicitly shows the “Percentage of arrests involving Latinos in Texas and California” before and after S-Comm implementation. This measures progress toward Target 10.3 by assessing discriminatory practices.

   • Probability of incarceration, disaggregated by citizenship status

     This is a key indicator used in the study to measure inequality of outcome. Figure 2 shows the “Predicted probabilities of… incarceration by citizenship status in Texas.” The finding that this probability increased significantly for non-citizens after S-Comm is a direct measure of disparity relevant to Targets 10.2 and 10.3.

   • Probability of conviction, disaggregated by citizenship status

     Figure 2 also presents data on the “Predicted probabilities of conviction… by citizenship status.” This serves as another indicator to measure whether the justice system provides equal opportunity and outcomes for different groups, as called for in Target 10.3.

2. Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Arrest rates disaggregated by crime type (felony, misdemeanor, traffic) and ethnicity

     The article mentions that its finding of no increase in Latino arrests was “consistent across felony, misdemeanor, and traffic arrests.” This disaggregated data serves as a detailed set of indicators to evaluate whether law enforcement practices are non-discriminatory, which is central to Target 16.b.

   • Proportion of arrested individuals who are incarcerated, disaggregated by citizenship status

     This is the primary indicator used to demonstrate a lack of equal access to justice (Target 16.3). The article states, “the likelihood that an arrested noncitizen would be incarcerated in Texas increased immediately following the introduction of S-Comm.” This metric directly measures differential treatment within the justice system.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: blogs.lse.ac.uk