Thread: State orders cops to help U.S. immigration agents

http://www.bergen.com

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By ELIZABETH LLORENTE
STAFF WRITERS



The state Attorney General's Office says local police officers cannot refuse to assist federal immigration agents when they conduct raids in New Jersey.

The legal opinion could affect the way municipalities deal with illegal immigrants.


"A municipal governing body is without the authority to direct its police force to suspend the enforcement of a criminal law or to disregard an allegation of criminal activity," wrote Deputy Attorney General Dermot P. O'Grady.

O'Grady was responding to the Princeton Borough Council, which sought an opinion on banning local officers from going on immigration raids. It is believed to be the first time the state has taken a position on local police involvement in immigration enforcement.

"Absent any specific direction from the attorney general or the county prosecutors," O'Grady wrote, "all county and municipal police officers are expected to either enforce or assist other agencies in the enforcement of immigration laws."

O'Grady's letter, dated Sept. 6, threw the Princeton Borough Council into a tailspin last week, as city officials, immigration lawyers and an assistant Mercer County prosecutor tried to determine what to do next. Because the opinion repeatedly referred only to "criminal activity," the council debated whether police would be obligated to assist in the far more common immigration cases brought under civil law.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security stress that entering the country illegally is "an administrative violation." Although a federal statute does say that "improper entry" by an alien may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to six months (a misdemeanor in the criminal statutes), Homeland Security officials say the offense is usually handled with deportation under the civil code.

Several council members said they realize that local police officers must arrest criminals. "But if we are not obligated to assist in the enforcement of civil laws associated with immigration, I would just [rather] not be involved," said Councilman David Goldfarb.

However, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said police don't have the option of choosing which laws to enforce.

"Police officers have the duty and obligation to enforce the law," said John Hagerty, the spokesman.

"Municipalities do not have the authority to regulate how police enforce the law. A municipality cannot tell police officers to ignore certain laws and enforce others.

"The attorney general sets the standard."

Drawing a distinction between the civil and criminal categories has been considered crucial by local officials in several New Jersey towns - as well as across the United States - who have argued that municipal police should not get involved in enforcing federal immigration violations that are administrative matters.

The issue reached a boiling point in New Jersey in the past year, when some towns - including Princeton - provided police support to federal immigration agents as they raided dozens of homes to arrest illegal immigrants who had ignored deportation orders. The collaboration drew bitter criticism from some community members and town officials, who said illegals would lose trust in police and be reluctant to report crimes in which they were victims or witnesses.

The deputy attorney general's opinion alarmed some Princeton officials who saw it as overly harsh and loaded with social, legal and financial ramifications.

Ryan Lilienthal, an attorney and former borough councilman who helped draft the Princeton ordinance, said he called O'Grady and asked: "Are you aware of the policy implications of what you are suggesting, or the budget implications you are suggesting for the state, the counties and municipalities?"

Lilienthal said O'Grady "clearly wasn't fully aware."

Princeton Police Chief Anthony V. Federico responded to the state ruling by drafting an order that tries to find a way to follow the law without harming the department's relationship with illegal immigrants.

"Local police agencies depend on the cooperation of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of crimes and in the maintenance of public order," the police chief said in the document. "Without assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families."

E-mail: llorente@northjersey.com and perez@northjersey.com

"A municipal governing body is without the authority to direct its police force to suspend the enforcement of a criminal law or to disregard an allegation of criminal activity," wrote Deputy Attorney General Dermot P. O'Grady.

O'Grady was responding to the Princeton Borough Council, which sought an opinion on banning local officers from going on immigration raids. It is believed to be the first time the state has taken a position on local police involvement in immigration enforcement.

They asked for guidance and they got it!

Instead of local police looking at this situation in a binary fashion either immigration enforcement or non-enforcement there should be an immigrant's ombudsman. The ombudsman would have the ability to take information with immunity and through cooperation with ICE utilize the witness visa in order to protect witnesses in cases.

This is so nonsensical..whether or not the illegals 'trust' the police....they should trust them implicitly to arrest and deport them. There is no possible defensible argument. You cannot tell me that I have to be accountable under any and all laws and others do not. They cannot select laws to be enforced or not. As long as the law is applicable, then it must be enforced. They cannot argue that enforcing the law is 'expensive'...of course it is...and they collect taxes commensurately.

RR

Originally Posted by RoadRunner

This is so nonsensical..whether or not the illegals 'trust' the police....they should trust them implicitly to arrest and deport them. There is no possible defensible argument. You cannot tell me that I have to be accountable under any and all laws and others do not. They cannot select laws to be enforced or not. As long as the law is applicable, then it must be enforced. They cannot argue that enforcing the law is 'expensive'...of course it is...and they collect taxes commensurately.

RR

Well said!

The situations in real life are more complicated than that.

Let me use an anology. If an apartment burglar was the only witness to a murder the person who was able to identify the killer would you tell them that it was better that they not say anything. In effect that is what you are doing if the burgar is not given a reduced sentence or immunity in exchange for testifying.

On the other hand it is wrong to take the attitude that since there are a lot of burglars burglars in general should be set free.

Richard: I can see possibly offering some kind of immunity in the case of illegals being witnesses of very serious crimes. However, the police excuse of building relationships doesn't fly with me. In my opinion, there is no way they could use an illegal immigrant as a witness for the prosecution of any crime. The first chance the defense attorney gets they will discredit the illegal by the fact that they are illegal.

Instead of tellin an entire police force not to enforce because some illegal aliens report crimes there should be an office with that specific function.

Good article... added to the homepage...

http://www.alipac.us/article-739-thread-1-0.html