Sheriffs defend cooperation with federal officials on immigration enforcement
Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins testifies against a bill that would force his agency to cancel an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement allowing the local department to enforce federal immigration law. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
Supporters of a bill that would force sheriff's departments to cancel agreements with federal immigration officials said deputies could still enforce the law just as effectively, they would just not be doing so as an extension of federal authorities.
'There are counties that do not have these formal agreements that still cooperate with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] still honor judicial warrants, still honor containers when they are presented to them,' Del. Nicole Williams (D-Prince George's) said Thursday during testimony for her bill, House Bill 1222.
The bill would prohibit local law enforcement agencies from entering into so-called 287(g) agreements that allow ICE to delegate some federal enforcement authorities to local officers, including the authority to arrest and check a person's immigration status through a federal database. The bill also requires those departments that have 287(g) agreements to cancel them by July 1.
Six counties — Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Harford and Washington — currently have 287(g) agreements with ICE. Frederick and Harford sheriffs turned up at Thursday's Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing to defend the program.
'Please allow the local counties to provide public safety as they see fit,' Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler said.
Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins said his jurisdiction has been part of the 287(g) program since 2008 and 'removed 1,795 criminals,' the majority of whom he described as 'dangerous' and 'violent.'
Gahler noted that since his department signed a 287(g) agreement in 2014, ICE has chosen not to initiate action in 35% of cases there. He also pointed to the popularity of the agreements, citing a January poll by Annapolis-based Gonzales Research & Media that found 76% of people surveyed said they would support requiring local governments to cooperate with federal efforts to enforce immigration laws.
But opponents of the agreements say 287(g) agreements 'significantly undermined any trust in law enforcement' in immigrant communities.
'287(g) agreements literally turn local law enforcement into ICE agents,' said Nicholas Katz, general counsel for the nonprofit immigrant-rights organization CASA, based in Prince George's County.
'In this moment, Black and brown families don't know if it's safe to go to work, if its safe to walk their kids to school, if it's safe to go to the hospital,' Katz said.
Under Williams' bill, which passed the House 98-38 last week, if federal authorities identify an immigrant who's been convicted and is being held in a local jail, the local officials would have to give ICE at least 48 hours notice before release of the imate, and would have to turn the immigrant over when federal authoritis arrived.
At Thursday's hearing, Sen. Chris West (R-Baltimore County) said the sheriffs would continue to do their job protecting the public, but asked if not having the 287(g) program would decrease their public safety work. It would, Gahler said.
'If we lose the ability to have these agreements with ICE, we lose what comes along with it,' Gahler said. 'Which is finding out whether these people are indeed in the country illegally, and recommendations from ICE in relation to national security.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), chair of the committee, said he understood the perspectives from supporters and opponents of the bill. But he acknowledged 'there is a distinct fear' under the administration of President Donald Trump (R), who has made an immigration crackdown a key element of his tenure. The 287(g) program began under former President Bill Clinton (D) in the 1990s.
'I guess our policy debate here is centered on the federal prerogatives and their implementation of deportation policy and the existence of 287(g) in Maryland,' Smith said.
'Is that creating such an atmosphere that people are not going to want to cooperate with law enforcement? Live life?' he asked. 'Is that something that is beneficial to keeping the 287(g) program or getting rid of it?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ICE Mistakenly Detains U.S. Marshal in Arizona
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were left red-faced in Arizona after detaining a man who 'fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE'—before quickly releasing him when they worked out who he was. After stopping the man in the lobby of a federal building that houses Tucson's immigration court, officers realized the case of mistaken identity and let him go with no arrest made. That's because the man in question is a U.S. Marshal. 'A Deputy U.S. Marshal who fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was briefly detained at a federal building in Tucson after entering the lobby of the building,' the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement. 'The Deputy U.S. Marshal's identity was quickly confirmed by other law enforcement officers, and he exited the building without incident.' The agency did not state when the incident happened or provide any further details. U.S. Marshals are law enforcement officers who carry out a range of tasks in service to the U.S. federal judiciary and act as the enforcement arm of the federal court system. U.S. Marshals are stationed in Tucson's federal buildings, where they provide security services. ICE agents have been under pressure to ramp up their deportation efforts by the Trump administration. Last week, ICE boasted that they had detained a 'record' 2,200 people in a single day, but White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller sees room for much improvement with those numbers. In May, Miller and Homeland Security boss Kristi Noem reportedly instructed officers to begin making 3,000 arrests per day or risk losing their jobs. According to a report released at that time, Miller apparently urged agents to 'turn the creative knob up to 11' by grabbing bystanders off the street and detaining people without a warrant in order to meet their quotas. ICE acting director Todd Lyons said in April that he wanted deportations run 'like a business,' aiming to replicate the vast capabilities of Amazon by becoming 'Prime, but with human beings.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
