Sanctuary policies contribute to ICE dangers

In 1996, Section 287(g) was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This section allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to delegate specific immigration enforcement authority to designated members of state, county and municipal law enforcement agencies who are then trained by ICE in the execution of that authority. The limits on that authority are formalized by a Memorandum of Agreement between ICE and law enforcement.

As of Jan. 16, 1,317 law enforcement agencies in 39 states (including eight in Minnesota) have signed an ICE memorandum of agreement. Six states (California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington) expressly prohibit their LEAs from signing ICE’s MOA through state law or public policy. According to the DOJ, there are currently 18 sanctuary cities and 4 sanctuary counties in the U.S. where local LEAs are prohibited from honoring ICE detainers on individuals in their custody, regardless of their criminal history in their home country.

When individuals with outstanding detainers are released from custody in sanctuary jurisdictions, local ICE officials are not notified, forcing them to search out and apprehend these individuals in the community. It’s on these apprehension operations where violent encounters between ICE agents and protesters are most likely to occur. To date, these violent (and now deadly) encounters have only occurred in sanctuary cities.

In the rest of the U.S. where local law enforcement cooperates with ICE, transfers to ICE custody take place in a controlled space (typically a jail) where the chance of a violent encounter between ICE agents and protesters is all but eliminated.

It’s clear that ICE will not be dissuaded by protesters, violent encounters or the heated rhetoric of politicians. Perhaps the leaders of sanctuary cities and states should emulate the 1,317 agencies that cooperate with ICE and help deport these illegal aliens.

Randy Harris

Campton Hills