The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently released a statement saying it is considering giving state and local law enforcement officials the power to enforce federal immigration laws.
The opinion, still in draft form, says “states and municipalities have the ‘inherent authority’ to enforce immigration laws.” While DOJ officials did not discuss the opinion, they did release a statement that said, in part:
“In the aftermath of Sept. 11, many state and local law enforcement agencies have asked the Department of Justice to review this opinion to enforce immigration laws. With more than seven million illegal aliens in the United States and only 2,000 INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] agents to handle interior enforcement, the Department of Justice is exploring many options to enforce immigration laws.”
The draft opinion, reported in The Washington Post, has been met with different reactions from local law enforcement agencies, county officials and civil rights organizations.
“I would think it would probably be a good thing,” said Monroe County, Pa. Commissioner James Cadue. “And the reason I say that without a great deal of background is that as a result of the events of Sept. 11, one of the things our Homeland Security Task Force is advocating is greater information sharing between federal, state and local agencies.”
Cadue is Chair of NACo’s Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee and a member of the NACo Homeland Security Task Force.
“When we talk about efforts to prevent acts of terrorism, there are 450,000 to 500,000 sworn law enforcement officials at the local level. These are the people down in the trenches,” Cadue said.
Even for those in support of the possible shift in policy, there were some concerns, particularly about the finances of the project.
“The only thing I can see wrong with it is if they give you these mandates, but they don’t give you any money,” said Joe Fuller, parish police juror from Rapides Parish, La. “If they are willing to put up some money, I think it would be a great idea.”
Some law enforcement officials question why such a shift in policy is even necessary.
“My immediate knee jerk reaction is this: Law enforcement is law enforcement and if there is a law that needs to be enforced and if there are people there to enforce it, they should,” said Carroll County, N.H. Sheriff Scott Carr. “It makes no sense to me that we’re not already capable of taking these people into custody and turning them over to the appropriate agency.”
In border counties, the sentiment is reserved and mixed. In San Diego County, Calif. for instance, the county is taking a wait-and-see approach. According to Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Sgt. Lisa Miller, the county is withholding comment until they know for sure what the DOJ will require of local law enforcement. However, in Yuma County, Ariz., another border county, Sheriff Ralph Ogden doesn’t really see the point.
“The border patrol has quite a presence here and they do a good job,” Ogden said. “I can’t see how it would really help us at all.”
Ogden said he could see where the change in enforcement could possibly be beneficial in interior sections of the country where the border patrol does not have a presence.
“We’ve got more important things to do,” Ogden said. “Let them do their jobs and we’ll do ours.”
The biggest concern all the officials voiced, whether in support of or opposition to the proposed change is whether or not this new policy is simply “lip service” from the DOJ or a way for the department to enforce their own laws while avoiding enlarging the payroll.
“I think this is mostly smoke and mirrors,” Carr said. “It would almost seem to me that this is a PR tool to make people feel good.”
At this time, NACo has not adopted a policy on the proposed shift in DOJ policy. Until an actual policy is released by the DOJ, NACo states concerns about liability, funding, training and the constitutionality of the opinion.
