Police agencies not seeking to take on immigration role
Law enforcers in Arizona say they remain focused on local responsibilities
Representatives of law-enforcement agencies in Arizona’s border counties and in metro Phoenix said they remained focused on local police responsibilities and that would not change with the release of new federal orders on immigration enforcement.
Agencies on Tuesday had yet to receive queries or guidance from U.S. authorities, who have revived programs that deputize local police to act as federal immigration agents.
Their participation is not required, but an Arizona State University law professor says the Arizona agencies face a “Catch 22”-type dilemma.
The orders, signed by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, provide guidelines for enforcing the Jan. 25 executive order signed by Trump. The memos make undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime the highest priority for enforcement operations, but they also empower authorities to identify, capture and quickly deport every undocumented immigrant they encounter. The only exception: certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
Some agencies, including several close to the border, said they would not volunteer for new responsibilities.
Enforcement of state and federal laws related to immigration is a complex effort, Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus said in a statement.
“Entangling local policing with additional immigration enforcement responsibilities would seriously compromise our ability to maintain the trust and support of our diverse community,” Magnus said. “If any of our residents believe that by reporting a crime, seeking assistance, or working with the police to make their neighborhoods safer will cause them to be unconstitutionally detained for an extended time or deported, our community becomes less secure.”
“We will not compromise our commitment to community policing and public safety by taking on immigration enforcement responsibilities that appropriately rest with federal authorities,” he said.
Many agencies emphasized their cooperative relationship with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
None appeared eager to get involved and widen their authority.
Phoenix police and Glendale police continued to reiterate their stance that the needs of their citizens and local duties took priority over federal directives.
“We want our victims and witnesses to feel comfortable reporting to police without fear of undue scrutiny. We will continue to follow state law as it pertains to immigration status verification of all arrested people,” Phoenix police Sgt. Jonathan Howard said.
Evelyn Cruz, a professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, is the director of its Immigration Law and Policy Clinic. She told The Republic the decisions agencies have to confront were a “Catch-22.”
If agencies choose to have their officers enforce federal laws as immigration agents, they will have to divert resources from other areas of public safety into the tough immigration initiative, Cruz said. If they choose not to, they risk losing resources from the federal government, she said.
“Local agencies have to make an assessment on the right options for them,” Cruz said. “We need to pay attention to what they want to do and where they want to draw their lines because there are consequences for not following as well as being committed to the order.”
“... To maximize participation by state and local jurisdictions in the enforcement of federal immigration law near the southern border, I am directing the Director of ICE and the Commissioner of CBP to engage immediately with all willing and qualified law enforcement jurisdictions that meet all program requirements for the purpose of entering into agreements under 287(g) of the INA.
“The Commissioner of CBP and the Director of ICE should consider the operational functions and capabilities of the jurisdictions willing to enter into 287(g) agreements and structure such agreements in a manner that employs the most effective enforcement model for that jurisdiction, including the jail enforcement model, task force officer model, or joint jail enforcement-task force officer model . ... ”
Either way, communities will feel an impact, Cruz said.
“Officers are being placed in the front line of a very sticky situation,” Cruz said. “It’s a difficult position between following through on the call to do this enforcement while at the same time (fulfilling) their desire to have a good relationship with the community.”
Police officers have encounters with people in the country illegally in all types of situations, she said.
. “If you create a fear, crime is going to rise and spread to other areas of town. It would be disaster if an immigrant community doesn’t want to talk to (police).”
One of the programs cited in the executive order, Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, deputizes local police to act as federal immigration agents. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security must enter a written agreement with the state, county or city for the program to take effect.
Such deals faded away under the Obama administration. Today, there are no remaining street-level contracts, and only 37 remaining agreements in jails throughout the country, according to ICE data.
Four Arizona entities — the Arizona Department of Corrections, Yavapai and Pinal counties, and the city of Mesa — operate jail programs under Section 287(g). Agreements allow deputized officers to ask inmates questions on immigration status and place them on “detainers” to be held for ICE deportation proceedings.
Street-level task forces once put officers out on the streets who would identify undocumented immigrants on their own, or respond to calls from their colleagues if they suspected they pulled over an undocumented immigrant. It’s a concept familiar to Arizonans. Led by former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the state flagged more undocumented immigrants for deportation than any other state in the country by the late 2000s.
In southern Arizona, top law-enforcement officials viewed the DHS memo with hesitance over how it will be implemented, and over what impact it will have on their departments.
Arizona border sheriffs said that while they support the federal government doing its job in enforcing immigration laws, they don’t foresee changing anytime soon how they currently operate.
“Immigration is a federal issue,” Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels said. “Public safety when it comes to state law is my issue. At times do they overlap? Yes, they do. But that’s why you have that close relationship.”
Dannels, an advocate for stronger federal enforcement measures, echoed other border sheriffs in saying that their departments already work very closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.
Because of the proximity and cooperation, all four sheriffs said they immediately notify ICE or the Border Patrol when they come across someone who is in the country without proper documentation, and the federal agencies generally don’t take long to respond.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said hiring 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, as the DHS memo directs the agency to do, definitely would have an impact on border security.
But he also noted there are other parts of border security that he believes have been neglected and that the DHS memo makes no mention of: staffing at the legal ports of entry.
“All of the people coming across are not coming around the fence; they’re coming in through the ports of entry,” he said. “There’s not enough agents or officers there to vet everyone, so obviously that’s a weakness. And by the same token, the drugs, they’re coming through tractor trailers, in cars …”
Another issue the border sheriffs noted was money.
“Participating in 287(g), an agency has to determine whether or not it’s a valuable use of their resources, especially if you’re an agency that’s shorthanded,” Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said. “Another thing to look at is the fact that if you have an employee performing 287(g), then they need to determine whether that is a use of taxpayer resources or not.”
Wilmot said his department was previously enrolled in the program, and they had an employee dedicated to carrying out some of the federal immigration duties, such as reviewing booking info in the county jail. But he noted that the federal government paid for it.
“I would not use taxpayer money to perform an immigration function,” he said. “Because I don’t have the manpower to be doing all that … We don’t participate in that right now, but we cooperate with them.”
Pima County Sheriff Mark Napier also said he had concerns over capacity. Even if additional funding is made available to them, he said, he doesn’t have enough space in his jail to detain undocumented immigrants, or the staffing to enforce immigration duties on top of more traditional policing.
“From a public-policy perspective, I have concerns about local law enforcement being engaged in proactive law enforcement,” he said. “It’s really not the job of local law enforcement to be engaged in that activity.”
A border sherrif in Texas had similar comments.
El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles
said he has no plans to sign on to the 287(g) program.
“That program has been in effect for many years and we have never signed on to that program because, in effect, what it does is make your officers immigration officers,” Wiles said. “I understand that order is going to encourage the state, local and county law enforcement to sign on, and I have no intent to sign on to it.”
Wiles said he does not believe the Trump administration’s plan for local law enforcement will have an immediate impact on El Paso since the program has not been made mandatory.
“I do think it has the potential, once ICE and Border Patrol get additional resources, for the federal government to widen the net in apprehending undocumented immigrants, but I do not see an impact on local and county law enforcement,” Wiles said. “Nothing in there looks mandatory, nor do we face any consequences.”
Representatives of several large police agencies based in the Phoenix area said they have yet to receive additional directions from DHS officials.
Col. Frank Milstead, director of the state Department of Public Safety, told The Republic he doesn’t envision any changes for DPS.
Already, he says, undocumented immigrants who have warrants out for their arrest are turned over to federal immigration authorities, as well as those picked up as part of the state’s border Strike Force.
“We have not been asked by the Department of Homeland Security officials to change any part of our mission,” he said. “It’s business as usual.”
A representative of Gov. Doug Ducey did not respond to a request for comment.
The Pinal County and Yavapai County sheriff’s offices, agencies that provides support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement through immigration-enforcement 287(g) programs in their jails, said they plan to continue the program but that it was premature to discuss any future changes.
“PCSO will continue to serve and protect the community in the same way it has always done. Our deputies will continue to investigate crimes, and if we come across violations in the immigration laws, we will notify our federal partners,” said Navideh Forghani, Pinal County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman.
Mark Casey, a spokesman for Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, said, “MCSO’s 287(g) status has been revoked. Our focus is on ensuring the right practices and procedures are in place at MCSO. When that comes to fruition, we will reassess whether to apply for 287(g) status.”
Arizona has already tested the legal limits of handing federal immigration power to local police. In 2010, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 1070, then seen as the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in the nation.
One of the most controversial provisions of SB 1070 required local police to inquire about a person’s immigration status during a stop, detention or arrest. Though court battles chipped away at other portions of the omnibus bill, the “show me your papers” provision remained standing.
After years of legal battles, in September 2016 the state entered into a settlement agreement with a coalition of civil-rights organizations led by the ACLU over the last disputed parts of the legislation.
Guidelines issued by the Arizona attorney general state that law-enforcement officers cannot arrest people merely because they are in the country illegally, which is a civil offense and not a criminal offense. And without probable cause of a criminal offense, they also can’t stop people solely to inquire about their immigration status.
“Officers will have to continue to abide by the rules (against) profiling,” said Cruz, the ASU law professor. “You obviously cannot tell if someone is a citizen from what they look like or what they speak like. Officers will have to remind themselves of that.”
Steve Kilar, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, called the memos a “blueprint for mass deportation.”
“They are willing to round up and ship off anyone they can get their hands on,” he said.
“They’re going to hurt a lot of people by trampling on due process, tearing families apart and leaving U.S. citizens without their close relatives.”
He said he believes the directives are a formula for unconstitutional policies that would include racial profiling and unlawful searches and seizures. But Kilar said he believes police in Arizona have learned from past mistakes.
“I really do believe police departments in Arizona have come a long way and have no intentions of turning back,” he said. “They understand the damages of 1070 did to their reputation in certain communities in Arizona. They realize it made their jobs harder when people saw them as immigration agents.”
Includes information from USA Today reporter Aaron Martinez and Republic reporter Megan Cassidy.