States debate working with or against ICE - Fresh Take Tennessee

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose actions have been the subject of nationwide protests and contentious online debate, is the focus of legislation proposed in states across the country.

After a crackdown in Minneapolis, when an ICE officer shot and killed Renée Good and federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, the agency has received a range of responses, including anti-ICE protests and support for ICE in many state legislatures.

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 up after ICE has raided several cities across the country to detain immigrants who do not have proper documentation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (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.

The organization is helping seven Nashville city council members who filed a lawsuit against Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Davidson County District Attorney General Glenn Funk. They accuse the state of acting unconstitutionally for prosecuting “local officials who adopt, enact or even vote for policies that conflict with the State’s mandated views on immigration enforcement,” according to the legal complaint.

With the most recent count of detainees date back to Feb. 7, more than 68,000 people are in immigration detention, with the most held in Texas, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a database run by Syracuse University.

In at least 21 states, lawmakers are sponsoring regulations for how state and local law enforcement officials must interact with ICE — some requiring cooperation with the federal agency and some prohibiting it.

Lawmakers who want to reign in ICE operations have proposed legislation prohibiting state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the federal agency.

Those who proposed pro-ICE bills want to allow 287(g) agreements, a program that allows state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws, too. Some organizations, such as All In Chattanooga in Tennessee, are speaking against the 287(g) agreements.

Opposition to Cooperation

In Maryland, a law banning 287(g) agreements passed, requiring termination of any immigration enforcement agreements by July 1. Bills against cooperation with federal immigration enforcement have been seen in states including Minnesota, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico and Virginia.

In Minnesota, Republican and Democratic legislators are at odds over how to handle ICE’s presence even after a Feb. 12 announcement that the crackdown called Operation Metro Surge would end.

Three 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.

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 of his concerns 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,” he said, when the goal should be “community-oriented policing.”

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.

The New Mexican 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 at a Feb. 5 news conference.

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.

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 note any such agreements, terminate them and note when they end.

Virginia House Bill 1441 would prohibit law enforcement officers in assisting federal authorities with enforcing immigration laws unless presented with an official judicial warrant.

Legislators are proposing 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, amongst 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. Senate Bill 452 would extend certain laws that apply to state and local police to also cover federal law enforcement, including 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.

Law enforcement lobbyist Ed Klumpp said the measure would not expand federal authority but would give local officers clearer tools when federal agents face interference.

In Arizona, six out of 15 counties already have 287(g) agreements.

In the Republican-controlled legislature, pro-cooperation measures are advancing. One bill would require state and local law enforcement to fully cooperate with ICE and to check the immigration status of anyone detained if they suspect the person is in the country illegally. The Senate approved that bill Feb. 23.

“Arizona will no longer be a safe harbor for illegal activity or a place where federal laws are ignored,” Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers, who authored the bill, said in a news release. “These bills are about accountability, lawfulness and protecting Arizonans.”

This article was produced through the Statehouse Reporting Project, a collaborative effort by collegiate journalism programs across the country. The lead reporter was Zoe Naylor, and Sarah Shockey, Elliot Akerstrom, Natalie Ogami, Victor Martinez, Aleks Arwood, Grey Steele, Hannah McDonough, Abbey Mulcahy and Alessandra Caceres Mendoza contributed.