How will police departments respond to more aggressive deportation?

Charlotte, North Carolina, provides an example of the issues facing police departments, which may conflict with local sheriffs and corrections departments.

According to the Charlotte Observer, “In the summer of 2015, then-Charlotte police chief Rodney Monroe told City Council that enforcing federal immigration law was not part of CMPD’s [Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept.] mission.”

It goes on:

Monroe was discussing a civil rights resolution, which stated that CMPD officers would not ask about a suspect’s immigration status during routine police work. The resolution went further: During the course of an investigation, an officer might be told or learn a person is in the country illegally. CMPD’s position was to refrain from reporting them to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, except in cases of a gang or terrorism.

The department’s policy – which was approved by the City Council – led some to designate Charlotte a “sanctuary city,” a moniker the city disputed.

At the time, Monroe said it was important for people to feel comfortable talking with police as witnesses or people with information. Kerr Putney, the current chief, also agreed with that approach. Monroe said it wasn’t CMPD’s job to enforce federal tax laws, and he said it wasn’t the department’s job to enforce immigration laws either.

CMPD’s more lenient position differs from that of the Mecklenburg Sheriff’s Office, which administers the county’s jail. Ten years ago, the sheriff’s office became the first law enforcement agency east of Phoenix to participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s 287(g) program, in which all non-U.S. born arrestees are checked for being a “potentially removable alien.” Four other N.C. counties have similar agreements with ICE – Wake, Cabarrus, Gaston and Henderson counties. “We have no reason to believe there will be any changes to the 287(g) program in the short term,” said Mecklenburg Sheriff Irwin Carmichael in a statement last week. “We will have to wait and see how the Trump administration impacts 287(g).”

Thanks to David for pointing this out.

 

Leave a Reply