Police balk at watching for illegal immigrants

Northwest police chiefs and sheriffs are headed for an uncomfortable face-off with the U.S. Department of Justice when Attorney General John Ashcroft follows through with plans to authorize local police to enforce immigration laws.

Washington state's top law enforcement officials say their resources are already stretched thin, and they want answers to a raft of questions before they agree to take on responsibilities now handled by the Justice Department.

"We don't have enough people to do what we are supposed to do -- without taking on jobs that the federal government is supposed to do," said Larry Erickson, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriff's and Police Chiefs.

Erickson said that before advocating any changes, the association would want to know how much it would cost departments, the effect on already overloaded jails and the overall effect on community safety.

"If it could be shown to local law enforcement that (the new policy) could protect their communities from an act of terrorism, that would be one thing -- but if it's just the federal government not having the manpower to enforce student visa (violations) -- if they are just trying to push some of their work off on us because they don't have enough agents -- that's another."

Police officials across the country are already speaking out against Ashcroft's proposal.

In an April 4 letter to Ashcroft, Bob McDonell, president of the California Police Chiefs Association said, "In order for local and state law enforcement organizations to continue to be effective partners with their communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their immigration status."

The new policy would be an abrupt turnaround for the Justice Department, which has for years considered enforcement of immigration laws a federal responsibility best left to agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The New York Times reported this week that the Bush administration, which has been in lock-step with Ashcroft and his stringent approach to prosecuting terrorists, felt blindsided by the shift. White House officials reportedly expressed concern that Ashcroft would announce the shift without first vetting it with them and considering possible fallout.

Justice Department representatives did not return phone calls yesterday. But last week its Office of Legal Council did not deny the policy change was imminent.

Although the department has not yet explicitly said why the changes are necessary, the fact that there are only about 1,800 immigration service agents currently assigned to internal enforcement and about 8 million people living illegally within the United States could be a major motivation.

And as with many other components of Ashcroft's campaign to secure the United States from terrorists, the pending Justice Department opinion worries immigrant-rights and civil-liberty advocates.

"We have tried this approach before in 1942 with the Japanese internment; we can't possibly repeat those experiments again," said Pramila Jayapal, director of the Hate Free Zone Campaign of Washington. "One of our biggest concerns is that policies like this could lead to increased racial profiling.

"Many of the proposals that are coming out of the federal government right now are ones that we have actually gotten rid of because of abuses in the past. That's why there has been a longstanding division between the INS and police, and between federal issues and local issues."

Jayapal said the agencies have traditionally been separated because they have much different functions.

"Immigration enforcement is a federal matter, and local police are responsible for protecting the community -- all of the community -- including immigrants and non-immigrants, citizens and non-citizens," Jayapal said.

Essentially deputizing local police as immigration agents would greatly increase distrust of police in immigrant and refugee communities, which make up one-fifth of Seattle's population, she said. Those communities would be more reluctant to report crimes if doing so could jeopardize their ability to remain in the country.

If violent crimes go unreported, that affects the entire community, Jayapal said.

"We have been in conversation with the police department, and we are hopeful that we are going to be able to have a clear policy about the function of the police and the function of the INS," she said. "We want the city officials to exercise their discretion and not overburden our local police force with federal issues."

Xuan-Trang Tran-Thien, associate director of Washington Alliance for Immigrant and Refugee Justice, said immigrant and refugee communities or families are fearful of calling local law enforcement because they feel that they will be reported to the INS or it will reflect badly on their residency status.

"If the Seattle Police Department is serious about community policing, then they need to develop trust within those communities ... including the immigrant or refugee communities," Tran-Thien said.

Mayor Greg Nickels sympathizes with immigrants' concerns, said his spokeswoman, Marianne Bichsel. Nickels plans to meet police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to discuss options for responding to the federal policy change, but not until it's formally announced, Bichsel said.

Kerlikowske also postponed comment until he sees the details of the Justice Department's ruling. It is still unclear whether local police would be required to take up the new duty or whether it would simply remain an option.

The Seattle Police Department has no policy on enforcing immigration laws, said spokesman Scott Moss.

"We refer them to INS," Moss said. "If INS asks us for assistance, we would serve as a backing agency."

Nationally however, some police departments have established policies stating that their officers will not assist immigration agents making arrests. Last year, Portland police refused an anti-terrorism request from Ashcroft to interview foreign visitors, saying that would violate state privacy laws.

Local officers near the Canadian border back up federal agents but make no arrests.

"My current policy is that if we run into an illegal alien, we detain them for the Border Patrol," Whatcom County Sheriff Dale Brandland said. "We don't actively pursue illegal aliens."

Brandland said he has serious reservations about Ashcroft's plan. "We are underfunded as it is and to try to take on that responsibility is just unacceptable," he said.

Whatcom County prosecutes at least 80 percent of the non-immigration cases generated by federal agencies operating there, Brandland said. The federal government does provide money for a prosecutor, but other expenses must be absorbed by local governments, he said.

"My jail is full. I have to turn people away from my jail regularly," Brandland said. "The federal government needs to be paying for what we are doing.

"They've been doing this for years and quite frankly it just doesn't work. ... It's really a sore subject for me. If there is a legitimate interest here, if there is a risk to our communities, we want to be a part of the team.

"What I would not do is go out and start hunting for illegal aliens just because John Ashcroft says I'm allowed to."

said Pramila Jayapal, director of the Hate Free Zone Campaign of Washington. "One of our biggest concerns is that policies like this could lead to increased racial profiling.

I am so sick and tired of this attitude. What about 9-11 did these idiots miss????

I am so sick and tired of this attitude. What about 9-11 did these idiots miss????

At first read, I agree, but we also have to look at the fact that if the feds hadn't been so busy usurping local powers and killing states rights for the last couple of decades, they would be able to do their Constitutional duties, in fact one of their only authorized powers granted by the Constitution, of protecting our borders. If the feds had been doing their job on 9/10 instead of spending their time and monies pursuing power grabs, we wouldn't be here discussing this today. The locals that were quoted in the story are ill equipped to do the job of the INS and the Border Patrol, who unfortunately have budgets ranging in the billions every year to do one simple task, and it is a simple task. Think about it. If the feds want to give up one of the only Constitutional duties they have, what purpose do they serve? The feds have hundreds of thousands of agents in every capacity imanginable, how can they suffer from a manpower shortage? In any task, one must establish priorities. I see no move from them establishing priorities. All in all, they seem rather clueless. The feds sorely lack accoutability. I'm still waiting for accountability for the events of 9/11. A whole bunch of people failed miserably at doing their jobs. They have no right forcing this down the Local LEO's throats, just more feel good. Blackbird.

If the feds had been doing their job on 9/10 instead of spending their time and monies pursuing power grabs, we wouldn't be here discussing this today.

Bingo!! The WTC should still be standing unharmed and thousands of people that were killed would still be alive if the government had been doing it's job.

Arrest and deport all of them.

"Local officers near the Canadian border back up federal agents but make no arrests."

"My current policy is that if we run into an illegal alien, we detain them for the Border Patrol," Whatcom County Sheriff Dale Brandland said. "We don't actively pursue illegal aliens."

The above two comments pretty much summarize the problem. I suspect that all Ashcroft wants local gov't to do is for ALL of them to adopt the policy in the second comment--i.e. if they stop someone for something (traffic violation, whatever) to run their I.D. thru the INS computers in addition to the FBI database, and, if they are found to be in violation of immigration status, to "detain them for the Border Patrol". I "do" think that the FedGov should re-imburse the local govt for any expenses incurred for this activity, otherwise it is an "unfunded mandate".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.