By Stephen Owsinski:
As the country witnesses the ripples from President Trump’s initiatives for the Department of Homeland Security and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to round up illegal immigrants, some law enforcement executives remain at odds regarding the legality of detainers and their role in deportation proceedings. Do these hiccups have to do with actual legal philosophies, impacts to local tax roles, or political leanings? Or is it D) all of the above?
Like every coin, there are two sides. Some sheriffs and police chiefs who operate jails are standing on the fence pertaining to our nation’s immigration laws and appropriate enforcement. Others are completely in sync with the federal government’s mandate to place detainers on illegal immigrants and contact ICE authorities for deportation cooperation/instructions. Some sheriffs claim the laws are a bit murky on constitutional prudence pertaining to holding inmates for federal custodial agents.
Paring it down, illegal immigrants in law enforcement custody for a criminal charge already meet deportation criteria. But police leaders point to a ruling by a US District Court (Illinois) that decided police officials bear potential liability by detaining a deportee after his/her bond was posted or case was otherwise disposed of. In essence, then, we agree that deportation is applicable but we have not arrived at the legal means to solidify the end goal. What recourse do we have?
Perhaps the impasse needs to be placed back in the laps of Congress to either revise that particular law or devise a new immigration code legislating deportation tenets and full-faith legal backing that protects law enforcement executives from middle-man scrutiny. Provide support for all cops involved in enforcing laws related to national security.
Regardless of the aforementioned suggestion, violating immigration laws requires custodial attention. Playing the it’s not our problem game weakens national security efforts. Violators of immigration laws easily interpret the weakness in government authorities and take advantage of it. The US presidency is authorizing nationwide enforcement, and law enforcement agencies ranging from one to 25,000 cops are under that same umbrella of actionable responsibility. Gone are the days of bickering about local cops and the federal agents not playing well together. Here is an opportune moment to underscore the contrary.
To the law enforcement standouts, put down the baggage you are needlessly carrying (imposing). Much like you did when you studied to become a cop, pare it down to your oath to uphold the Constitution. Congress makes laws, law enforcers enforce them, and the judicial process does the rest. In no measure is it implicit that sheriffs and police chiefs pick at straws to see if they come away with measureable favor. Do the job for which you were elected or hired. Don’t let your integrity get muddied by local political whims.
Recently, LifeZette published an expose regarding some Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents who are apparently hinged to “catch and release” frameworks practiced throughout the Obama presidency. Supervisors overseeing these CBP field personnel are entrusted with highly autonomous cadres of federal agents who are bucking President Trump’s immigration policies, executive orders, and mandated, unhampered authority to fully enforce national security measures at our borders. Shirking duty is exactly the impetus for more illegal entries; lack of consequences makes subsequent border-crossing attempts more likely.
None of the immigration laws, police procedures, enforcement responsibilities, or case precedence remains on untested grounds. Immigration policy is a mature factor of American society designed to protect its soil from foreign individuals who would seek to circumvent the laws—the same laws that include officers’ mandates to fulfill their mission and exemplify their Constitutional oath.
As reported by the Washington Post, on February 18, 2017, DHS Secretary John F. Kelly authored a memorandum outlining tougher immigration enforcement procedures to include hiring approximately 15,000 federal agents (10,000 ICE and 5,000 Border Patrol agents). In addition, the plans include enhancing cooperative relationships with local law enforcement. One measure that has seen huge success is the deputizing of local cops to bind both levels of law enforcement in common goals. In other words, local cops and federal agents work together to locate and arrest fugitives in their jurisdictions. The concept exemplifies cooperation among law enforcement and the wise use of resources.
As OpsLens colleague Jon Harris wrote in his article “More Millennials Feel Free Speech is No Longer a Right,” certain demographics tend to rant about issues surrounding law abidance and the constitutional rights of others, all based on their personal belief systems. Those with that mindset are ostensibly intent on rewriting the Constitution to suit their needs, dismissing others in doing so. That is not the solid foundation upon which our nation stood for over 200 years. As Mr. Harris wrote about free speech rights, “the Founding Fathers knew it was of utmost importance.” Indeed they did, yet millennials seem indignant and determined to re-author history. Are some law enforcement leaders part of this movement? Has our police culture become so decidedly politicized that we conjure misguided notions to align with a particular party’s whim and use elected stature to do it?
Immigration Policies and Particulars
Speaking of history, Harris encapsulated the necessity for scrutiny regarding those who come and remain here illegally, committing crimes and burdening authorities. Moreover, atrophied reasoning, while supported by those here illegally, perpetuates the distrust our nation is striving to overcome. Pleading away from immigration enforcement forfeits integrity and lends credence to those who believe police are arbitrary, non-objective actors.
As humans, we want to be the ones to make people happy, granting wishes left and right. As police officials sworn to uphold the nation’s laws, the line must be drawn and redrawn, especially when that line (border) is crossed without legal permission. We have a process in place. We have many processes developed for many reasons and many demographics, all instituted for the common cause of preserving and protecting our country’s sanctity. We vet our police officers. We scrutinize and vet our politicians. We vet our soldiers before they are veteran defenders of the Constitution.
According to data contained in the Center for Immigration Studies site, 42.4 million immigrants (both legal and illegal) are on American soil, and that figure has risen steadily since 1970.
Millions of illegal aliens drain far more tax dollars (social welfare programs) than local budgets can only hope to receive. It boils down to doing the right thing, without political tilt, bolstered by Constitutional tenets. Leave the political arena in D.C. and use its legislative embodiment for guidance.
Several law enforcement executives across the nation want a judge’s signed order for each individual in custody so that the onus of responsibility is recognized by the courts, before any law enforcement entity engages federal immigration law stipulations. Well, this particular factor is also addressed in the soon-to-be-released new directives by DHS Secretary Kelly.
Evolution is a decidedly good component for any nation’s prosperity. Yet, only now are we encountering this argument over immigration responsibilities. Are the principles of our former president so deeply rooted that some executives are philosophically entrenched and thus paralyzed to act accordingly, weak in enforcing our country’s immigration laws? Is the embedded anti-Trump movement behind the hands-off approach to immigration enforcement?
As St. Charles Parish Sheriff Greg Champagne, president of the National Sheriff’s Association, went on to explain in a Fox Business Network interview, “We have to give our president the benefit of the doubt.”
Equally important is giving credence to our nation’s laws—in this case, those particularly delineating immigration responsibilities. Personally, I fail to see the impasse or inability to comprehend what has been on the books for years. Or is it the lax enforcement of the past eight years that remains the favorite (easy) flavor of the day?
The menu has changed, and the current chef has gone back to basics. Get with the choices of today.
Is Money the Issue?
If it is money police figureheads are concerned about, that is commendable and rightly placed. Tax dollars allocated for public safety budgets are never robust, so the adage every penny counts is valid. However, no matter the criminal circumstance, we still have a sworn oath to fulfill and an obligation to process violators despite the cost. Crime is crime, criminal deeds cost money to facilitate jurisprudence, and jailed individuals must be meted out.
While we are discussing money, the attorneys and watchdogs at Judicial Watch have filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking release of records and financial data surrounding the discovery of tax dollars to immigrants in the form of loans. Both current and defaulted loans’ financial figures are being sought from the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM). Not sure about you, but I had no idea such a loan-making branch of our government existed. However, I am completely aware that we have military veterans who are scraping by, some living on the streets, who deserve better in the form of first dibs on government programs. Full-fledged and nation-serving citizens deserve far better! Fighting for our nation’s freedom to scrape by is not freedom at all, it is bondage. And here we are grappling with vetting foreigners who want in while dredging for illegal aliens who did not play by our rules.
Although the PRM program encourages and prioritizes migration with legal guidance and financial means to resettle in America, Judicial Watch seeks the dollar figure pertaining to defaulted loans by immigrants. Thus, even with provisions and adequate avenues to citizenship, our costs are astronomical and our goodwill often wasteful.
According to Judicial Watch findings, “The US government gives refugees on public assistance special ‘loans’ of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of defaults that could translate into huge losses for American taxpayers.” Perhaps that money can be allocated to public safety departments to operate their jails and for deportation processes without fretting about funding constraints.
For comparison, take Article 32 of Mexico’s Constitution, which stipulates:
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.”
Article 120 reads,
“The governors of the States are required to publish and enforce federal laws.”
Interesting excerpts from their playbook.
Playing Politics?
Current San Francisco sheriff Vicki Hennessy seems aligned with the city’s highest echelons of government and refrains from enforcing immigration laws. In this sanctuary city enclave, the former sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, implemented policy admonishing his deputies against complying with the federal government and immigration laws—an unconscionable position for a police executive sworn to uphold statutes. Yet, that is what is transpiring in the backdrop of the Golden Gate Bridge. Notice the policy’s verbiage: “no longer honor US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers unless they are supported by judicial determination of probable cause or with a warrant of arrest.” The words “no longer honor” implies changing course. Why the flip-flop? Why are immigration law violations not considered PC enough to then notify federal authorities? Is city sanctuary and San Fran harboring foreigners here without permission the determinant?
In his agency directive prohibiting his deputies from compliance with ICE, then-sheriff Ross Mirkarimi wrote the following:
Galarza v. Szalczyk, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in March 2014 that states and counties are not required to keep undocumented immigrants in jail on immigration detainers; and in April 2014, Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, the US District Court in Portland, Oregon found that county governments would be exposed to civil rights lawsuits for honoring detainers without showing probable cause.
My long-held belief is that local law enforcement should not be in the civil immigration detainer business. Arriving at a no-holds ICE policy culminates from San Francisco’s early leadership in challenging the deportation defects of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities (S-Comm) Act, coupled with the Oregon court’s decision on the unconstitutionality of ICE Detainers. Public safety is not advanced and could be hindered when immigrant communities fear the repercussions of cooperating with law enforcement.
So there you have the still-unsettling legal reasoning behind some sheriffs’ unwillingness to enforce immigration laws.
In these two cases, the courts cautioned law enforcement leaders regarding custodial holds. That same caution did not bode well for Kathryn Steinle, an American-born citizen and San Francisco resident. Ms. Steinle’s life was snuffed out by a frequent-flyer illegal immigrant in and out of jail for absolutely felonious behaviors, including shooting a stolen firearm. Steinle’s death resulted from a ricocheted bullet fired by a man who had no business or right to be walking freely among citizens. Ms. Steinle’s life was not the first taken by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Epitomizing our discussion here is how freeing known aliens who are bona fide criminals can go irreversibly awry, costing the life of an American out for a stroll with her dad.
What then-sheriff Mirkarimi called “civil immigration detainer business” I call a duty to enforce public safety (as does Kathryn Steinle’s family) and uphold citizens’ constitutional rights to walk freely without preventable threats looming in their midst.
Concerning itself with probable cause pursuant to illegal immigrants in custody, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department is now heavily saddled with a lawsuit from Ms. Steinle’s family, alleging law enforcement failed to do its job of detaining a violent illegal immigrant before ICE could assume custody and deport the Mexican national—for the sixth time. One can conclude that, if not for voluntary systemic anemia in this case, Katheryn Steinle would be alive and within her rights to peacefully stroll San Francisco. Why must it take the loss of life to raise the conscience?
The nexus of law enforcement is to protect and serve the nation’s citizens—operative word citizens—prioritizing focus on legal and authentic Americans. Foreign-born folks who overreach the freedom of the United States via illegal means serve no productive purpose and severely drain resources better applied toward law-abiding principles.
Others seeking a home on American soil legitimately achieve the apex of citizenship and all the features of the US Constitution. Desperation and circumvention of our laws invalidates freedoms and must be dealt with. Preliminary steps to legally enter any nation are gracious invitations toward a covenant of citizenship which unambiguously engenders obeying that country’s laws.
Full circle, law enforcement officials are responsible for enforcing those laws indiscriminately, indifferently, and under the tutelage of White House executive orders. We are a nation of laws, and enforcement authorities must not falter for us to be sovereign and successful.
As Congressman Trey Gowdy equivocated on behalf of the US House of Representatives when former President Obama was in office,
“The law is the reason we exist. We do not exist to pass ideas or to pass suggestions. We make law, with the corresponding expectation that that law will be enforced, respected, and executed, and we do so because the law is the thread that holds the tapestry of this country together and is the most unifying equalizing force that we have.”
The one piece of dialogue that intrigued me was Mr. Gowdy’s statement that “discretion means sometimes you say yes and sometimes you say no.” He went on to say “the gears of enforcement” must recognize that the law “binds us together and embodies the virtues that we cherish, like fairness and equality and justice and mercy.” We are bound together by our laws, yet we have an impasse posed by some law enforcers. We cherish peace, freedom, and sanctity, yet we harbor illegal aliens who are criminals. We believe in fairness, which implies that all parties—including immigrants seeking citizenship—are doing so fairly. We underscore equality, but we unequally enforce immigration codes (sanctuary cities, sanctuary campuses). We have justice, so we expect police officials to carry out law enforcement judiciously. And finally, we have mercy. Perhaps no other nation is more merciful than the United States. We already covered the multitude of processes available toward attaining legitimate citizenship.
I am all in favor of welcoming new cousins I was formerly unaware existed, providing they do not bring to my doorstep irresponsibility, criminal behavior, and fugitive status while putting their hand out for what I legitimately and painstakingly earned via the accordance of citizenship.
There is no mythology in our codified rules of engagement, so what is the problem? For those in America illegally, committing crimes means“you’re out!” Perhaps it is high time SCOTUS speaks out so that we can join all law enforcers on the same page of policing for the sake of national security and a placid people.
Stephen Owsinski is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and retired law enforcement officer whose career included assignments in the Uniformed Patrol Division and Field Training Officer (FTO) unit. He is currently a researcher and writer.
To contact or book OpsLens contributors on your program or utilize our staff for your story, contact [email protected]
