Given the news feeds this week about the impact of President Trump’s decision to send hundreds of ICE agents to Minneapolis on that region, it might be time for the State to reconsider it’s advocacy for 287 (g) agreements to cooperate with ICE, which requires each town to have “at least one officer trained on the procedures and how they might deal with a situation if they were to encounter someone who was undocumented.”
Three things have happened since this bill was passed that might give pause to those who initially supported the idea.
First, in September, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh heard an emergency case involving the deportation of an alleged undocumented immigrant that resulted in a decision that gave federal agents the authority to stop and detain a person based on their perceived ethnicity, spoken language, and occupation.This shadow docket decision has subsequently led to so-called “Kavanuagh stops” where individuals who appear to be foreign, speak English haltingly, or are awaiting pick-ups from employers to go to work have been detained without due process. Will Grafton County Sheriffs be asked to assist with “Kavanaugh stops?” If so, will college students be affected? Who will determine which employers should be targeted?
Secondly, dozens of protesters who oppose the actions of ICE in Minneapolis and the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent were arrested over the weekend. President Trump has offered his full support for the arrests, threatening a “DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION” for Democrats in Minnesota. There is concern among many who participate in protests about the extensive use of tear gas and physical force at the largely peaceful protests, actions taken by ICE despite arrests made by local police. What role would the Grafton County sheriff’s office be playing should there be a protest in Hanover? Will the next No Kings rally be videotaped to identify potential “insurrectionists?”
Finally, the well documented appearance and conduct of ICE officers in conducting their house-to-house searches and traffic stops is unsettling. Will the Grafton County sheriff’s department be trained to participate in these actions and, if so, will they be expected to mask themselves and take off their badges?
This nationalization of the enforcement of immigration law is seen by many observers as a harbinger of an emerging autocracy. Is New Hampshire’s promotion of 287(g) task force Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) a sign that they concur with and will adhere to the conduct of ICE officers?
In an earlier Valley News article on the deliberations in Hanover and Lebanon regarding their welcoming ordinances, state Sen. Sue Prentiss noted the quandary local governments and opponents to these MOAs face. Prentiss, who represents West Lebanon and who was on the Lebanon City Council when the city’s Welcoming Ordinance passed, voted against the bill Ayotte signed in the last legislative session because she opposed using local resources to do the work of the federal government, especially “when we can’t even cover our own public safety needs,” noting at the time that the Lebanon Police Department currently has job openings for a patrol officer, a crossing guard and a contracted part-time prosecutor. Prentiss also noted that neither Hanover nor Lebanon’s policies dealing with immigrants advocated the harboring of criminals, emphasizing that anyone who commits a crime in those communities will be prosecuted. Yet even though Prentiss did not agree with either the new state law or the federal government’s recent directives, she still thought both towns should follow the law.
Prentiss was not the only public official concerned about the cost impact of aligning with ICE. Earlier this year Grafton County Commissioner Martha McLeod noted that according to a May 5 news release from the Department of Homeland Security the average cost to arrest, detain, and remove an undocumented immigrant is more than $17,000. In a state that is struggling to balance its budget, why would they not insist that ICE cover that cost instead of the State?
Given everything described above, I have some broad questions: Who will set the priorities for our local police force? Our local governments? Our local police chiefs? Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem?President Trump?
Here’s a final thought: if compliance with the state law means that we are agreeing to assisting in the creation of a de facto national ICE army, maybe we should consider becoming conscientious objectors.