States debate working with or against ICE

By Zoe Naylor, Missouri News Network
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose actions have been the subject of nationwide protests and contentious online debate, is the subject of legislation proposed in a number of states.
Some bills would prohibit ICE officers from wearing face coverings, operating near schools and churches and using surveillance technology for immigration enforcement. Others would require cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement.
The topic of immigration enforcement and how it should be carried out comes after ICE has operated across the country to detain immigrants lacking proper documentation. After a crackdown in Minneapolis, when an ICE officer killed Renée Good and federal immigration agents killed Alex Pretti, the agency has received a range of responses across many legislatures.
As of Feb. 7, more than 68,000 people are in immigration detention. Over 39,000 were booked into ICE detention in January, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a database run by Syracuse University.
In at least 21 states, lawmakers have proposed regulations for how state and local law enforcement officials must interact with ICE.
Lawmakers who want to rein in ICE have proposed legislation prohibiting state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the federal agency.
Others have proposed pro-ICE bills to allow 287(g) agreements, a program that allows state and local law enforcement to join in enforcing immigration laws.
Several bills backing cooperation with ICE reference the Laken Riley Act, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain non-U.S. nationals who have been arrested for crimes like theft and larceny. The bills would extend the same requirements to the state, mandating immigration detainers for specific offenses, including federal crimes or crimes of violence.

State cooperation with federal enforcement
A major point of discussion is the extent to which state and local law enforcement should cooperate with ICE.
In Maryland, a law banning 287(g) agreements has passed, requiring termination of any immigration enforcement agreements by July 1. Bills against cooperation with federal immigration enforcement have been seen in Minnesota, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico and Virginia.
In Minnesota, Republican and Democratic legislators are at odds over how to handle ICE’s presence despite a Feb. 12 announcement that Operation Metro Surge would end.
Bills include prohibiting government entities from acquiring and using facial recognition technology, placing restrictions on tear gas and flash bang grenades and keeping ICE agents away from schools.
One proposal in the Kansas legislature, House Resolution 6028, declares state sovereignty against federal overreach. It argues that ICE has violated the Fourth Amendment by forcefully entering homes and arresting people without valid warrants.
Some organizations, such as All In Chattanooga in Tennessee, are speaking against the 287(g) agreements.
Debu Gandhi, senior director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, believes public safety is a priority when considering how ICE and local law enforcement ought to interact. One concern with agreements between the two is that they’re a drain on time and money.
“It takes away resources from their day jobs of policing and protecting public safety,” when the goal should be “community-oriented policing,” he said.
Gandhi hopes to see transparency, accountability and “reasonable use-of-force guidelines,” as well as federal officers being unmasked and carrying identification.
“You expect that of our local police. Is it too much to expect out of federal law enforcement? I don’t think so,” Gandhi said.
In the Arizona legislature, where Republicans control both chambers, Democrats have tried unsuccessfully to cut off cooperation. Two bills — one to prohibit 287(g) agreements and another that would void existing agreements — died in committee.
New Mexico’s Democrat-controlled legislature fast-tracked the Immigration Safety Act, which bans government bodies from detaining individuals with federal civil immigration violations and contracting with ICE on detention facilities. It was signed into law on Feb. 5.
“This legislation reinforces protections for New Mexico’s immigrant communities amid tremendous amounts of fear and uncertainty,” Democratic Rep. Eleanor Chavez said.
Republican lawmakers representing areas surrounding the state’s three existing ICE detention centers warned about the potential loss of jobs, but supporters argued the state should invest in job retraining and economic development.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico commended the law for “cementing New Mexico’s place as a national leader in protecting immigrant communities and refusing complicity in the Trump administration’s mass detention and deportation system.”
The ACLU in Tennessee is pushing back against state cooperation with ICE. The organization assisted seven Nashville city council members in their lawsuit accusing the state of acting unconstitutionally for prosecuting local officials who adopt or vote for policies that conflict with the state’s mandated views on immigration enforcement, according to the legal complaint.
On her first day in office, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger rescinded her predecessor’s executive order that allowed 287(g) agreements. In mid-February, she instructed state agencies to terminate any such agreements.
Virginia House Bill 1441 would prohibit law enforcement officers from assisting federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws unless provided an official judicial warrant. House Bill 1438, incorporated into the bill, proposed that no state law enforcement agency can enter a federal immigration enforcement agreement unless the names of federal officers are provided seven days in advance, the federal officers clearly identify themselves, and do not conduct immigration enforcement at schools, churches or courthouses, among other factors.

Favoring cooperation
Legislation in favor of working with ICE includes protections for officers, requirements for cooperation and allowances for local officers to serve immigration warrants.
Minnesota Republicans say they intend to revive a bill requiring local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Additionally, two bills were introduced that would protect the personal information of public safety officers and make protesting at peoples’ homes a crime.
Kansas House Bill 2771 arranges liability and legal protections for officers. Also, Senate Bill 452 would extend laws that apply to state and local police to also cover federal law enforcement, like statutes dealing with interference with law enforcement, access to public buildings and some traffic and vehicle regulations.
Calling his interest “big picture,” Senate President Ty Masterson, a Republican, said he wanted to avoid situations seen in other states where law enforcement operations are disrupted.
“I don’t want the situations going on in Minneapolis happening in Kansas, right?” Masterson said.
Rabbi Moti Rieber, executive director of Kansas Interfaith Action, said the bill would expand immigration enforcement while shielding officers from accountability.
“We will protect our neighbors with every non-violent means at our disposal,” Rieber said. “Because God’s law outweighs Masterson’s law.”
In Arizona, six out of 15 counties have 287(g) agreements.
In the Republican-controlled legislature, cooperation measures are advancing. The Senate has approved a bill that would require state and local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE and to check the immigration status of anyone detained if they suspect the person is in the country illegally.
“Arizona will no longer be a safe harbor for illegal activity or a place where federal laws are ignored,” bill author Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers said in a news release.
The website of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said it aims to “reduce overall immigration to a more normal level” to maintain a high quality of life.
Ira Mehlman, FAIR media director, said part of what the organization wants is not just reduced immigration, but public safety, management of resources and accountability for those who commit crimes.
“The laws exist to protect the interests of the American public,” he said, and that sanctuary cities can attract people who come illegally because they know they will be protected.