James Queally’s piece for the Los Angeles Times (2017, March 16) offers fascinating insight into
recent moves by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to liaise with local police at jails
themselves in order access immigration-related (and other) information local police have compiled
on criminal suspects. Fundamentally, this represents a major change in procedure, in that the
distance local police used to put between themselves and ICE (particularly within cities or regions
that deem themselves areas of “sanctuary”) has been eliminated so that these jurisdictions align
more closely to Trump administration policies and ethos. While local police are often reluctant to
work hand-in-hand with ICE, they have settled upon what is essentially a compromise: they are
allowing ICE officials to “do their thing” in jails where suspects cannot avoid interacting with ICE
and where ICE officials can access computer systems, records, databases and many other sources of
information. Many local police have suggested this procedure is equivalent to a “hands off” policy,
in that they are removing themselves from the process and allow ICE to take over, but this is not the
view of activists, legal observers, California’s state Supreme Court and other sympathetic to the
plight of undocumented immigrants. The article provides rich detail and examples of undocumented
immigrants who have been arrested for extremely minor violations (or have merely visited those
arrested) who have subsequently been interrogated by ICE and handed over for deportation on the
basis of their immigration status. The article suggests that numbers of individuals affected has risen
dramatically. Activists and others contend this represents a fundamental violation of individual
rights and due process, and that, in the end, it amounts to a type of racial profiling, in that ICE
officials only express interest in those of Hispanic descent who have been detained. Major
challenges are on the horizon that originators of this procedure will have to address in court if they
want this procedure to remain in place.
While such activity is clearly contrary to Christian notions of charity, honesty, and forgiveness, it is
difficult to argue that ICE is violating due process or truly engaging in racial profiling. After all,
those crossing the southern border illegally are wholly Hispanic in origin; it is difficult argue that
taking actions to target large pools of Hispanics who have committed other offenses and targeting
them for immigration-related investigation is contrary to inherent rights and legal norms. ICE is
simply doing its job. At heart, the US—at the highest level of policymaking—has to reconcile its
attitudes and behaviors related to immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular if it
wants to address the issues raised by the above procedure. ICE is not the problem. The fundamental
problem is confusion and contradictory directives flowing downward from those who craft policy
and interpret it in the courts. This is a fascinating, well-written piece that captures the essence of
current debate surrounding this issue. It is my hope that when change comes, it takes full account of
Christian notions of charity and forgiveness.