Police debating policies on migrants
Proposal would limit some queries about legal status
The Phoenix Police Department is considering policy changes that would limit when and where an individual’s immigration status applied to local police work.
The revised immigration-enforcement policy would bar officers from asking a crime victim or witness about their immigration status. It also would prohibit school-resource officers from contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement while on school grounds, according to a draft version of the policy.
The policy amendments would not alter how police typically interact with a suspect, regardless of immigration status.
Under Arizona law, all arrested individuals have their immigration status verified by the federal government before they’re released.
The revisions have not been formally adopted but already have drawn criticism from groups who say the proposals are either too stifling or don’t go far enough.
The union representing Phoenix police officers says the proposed revisions seek to fix something that’s not broken and would leave officers hamstrung in certain investigations.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona says it would like to see fur-
ther safeguards against biased policing.
Phoenix police Sgt. Jonathan Howard said that the policy still is being revised but declined to discuss which portions would be identified for future amendments.
“We sought the input of community leaders and organizations and are in the process of modernizing our existing policy regarding immigration,” he said.
The proposals come amid a conversation on immigration and policing, reignited by President Donald Trump and his orders that allow police to take a more aggressive role in identifying people without legal status.
The revised Phoenix policy would move Phoenix in the opposite direction. The draft revisions come as a result of recommendations from a City Council subcommittee formed by Mayor Greg Stanton in February after Trump signed the order.
The committee was created after the City Council rejected a citizen petition to designate Phoenix a sanctuary city. Stanton and other city officials at the time said doing so would have violated Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 and put the city at risk of losing millions of dollars.
The subcommittee came as a sort of consolation prize. It promised to “address President Trump’s recent executive orders and the federal government’s subsequent actions that have created fear and uncertainty across the nation, including our city.”
The three City Council members on the subcommittee — Kate Gallego, Daniel Valenzuela and Laura Pastor — all either declined to comment or did not return calls for comment. Gallego said she had not yet seen a final draft of the revisions and would comment after they were released.
Their recommendations were made public on April 14, though, and advised the police department to collect data on SB 1070, strengthen trust between school-resource officers and students, and provide resources to the refugee community.
The data recommendation is also reflected in the policy draft and would require the Violent Crimes Bureau desk sergeant to document all immigration data and provide authority to call ICE officers.
The proposed revisions also strike a different tone.
No longer would the policy be “Immigration Enforcement,” but instead, “Immigration Procedures.”
Wording that describes an individual as an “illegal alien” has been stricken, and the policy adds a “Sanctity of Life” provision, which includes the following language: “The Department respects the dignity of all persons and recognizes the sanctity of human life, rights and liberty,” the passage reads.
Ken Crane, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said the revisions are unnecessary for an agency without a track record of racial profiling.
“It would appear this policy, these revisions, are being done to comport with some form of political correctness,” he said.
However, Will Gaona, a policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said he’s seen the revisions and thinks they don’t go far enough.
“While I’d like to say that I’m encouraged by the progress, and that there was some clear direction given to the PD, I’m not sure the draft reflects that direction,” he said.