Should law enforcement work with ICE? Sheriffs in a ‘sanctuary’ state are torn.
-
Sarah Matusek Staff writer
| Divide, Colo.
Outside the sheriff’s office, a white county flag flaps in a cold wind.
Beside it stand the flags of the nation and the state.
Sheriff Jason Mikesell of Teller County, Colorado, has thought a lot about how these three levels of government interact. How his rural county is limited – partly by state law – in aiding federal officials on immigration arrests. He’s been sued for trying.
Why We Wrote This
A mix of state and local measures gives Colorado its “sanctuary” status. Within the state, some sheriffs are following the White House lead and pushing for closer cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
“In the state of Colorado, a sheriff is supposed to protect the peace,” the Republican says at his desk in a town called Divide. “How do you protect the peace when you’re taking the tools away from us to do so?”
Many law enforcement agencies across Colorado say they correspond with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including on expected immigrant releases from jail. Yet Mr. Mikesell and other frustrated sheriffs in this “sanctuary” state say they want a bigger role in helping remove immigrants who commit crimes from their communities. He supported a failed state bill that would have stripped away some of the state’s sanctuary provisions.
Other officials are promoting a public safety approach directly to immigrants, regardless of their legal status. “My office does not conduct immigration operations,” said Sheriff Jaime FitzSimons, a Democrat from Summit County, in a Spanish-English video. “It is safe to call whenever you need help. We are always here for you.”
The range of philosophies has raised questions about the level of discretion that local officials have to cooperate with the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign – and whether sheriffs will be emboldened by the White House.
Colorado shows how a national patchwork of immigration-related policies, outlining what law enforcement can and cannot do, “becomes less about a red state, blue state – and more about where you live locally,” says Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.
“Sanctuary” in Colorado
Politically, Colorado used to match its purple mountain majesties. Now the state is called blue. But with rural red swaths.
It’s also called a sanctuary state because of a cluster of immigration-related laws. That includes one from 2019 preventing law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining people based solely on a request from ICE.
Denver has additional restraints. In 2017, its City Council passed a measure restricting any city employee from using city funds or resources to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws.
Those types of policies are now targeted by the Trump administration and its congressional allies. On Wednesday, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston is scheduled to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee about immigration policies as part of an investigation into “sanctuary” cities. The U.S. House is considering a bill that would withhold certain federal funding.
The Justice Department has sued Illinois and New York state for what it considers sanctuary policies and put others on notice: “If you are a state not complying with federal law, you’re next, get ready,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Nationally, there’s no one definition for a sanctuary jurisdiction. But the term can imply policies that benefit unauthorized residents or limit local cooperation with the federal government on immigration. Colorado checks the box on both. Unauthorized immigrants here can access in-state college tuition, driver’s licenses, and certain health insurance benefits.
Mayor Johnston was quoted in local media this fall suggesting locals and police would resist a mass deportation effort. The Democrat later backtracked.
Denver is “welcoming,” instead of a “sanctuary,” Denver police Chief Ron Thomas says. The governor also denies that the state is a sanctuary.
“We want people to come forward and report crimes, and not worry about whether or not we’re concerned about their citizenship status,” Chief Thomas says.
Drawing closer to ICE
Elsewhere, some Colorado sheriffs are wanting to work more closely with ICE.
Teller County, a rural county west of Colorado Springs, is blanketed with snow on a January morning. The slush of cars passing by is one of the few sounds heard outside the jail.
“Whatever the new administration requests and asks from us, we will do,” Sheriff Mikesell says.
At the same time, “We have no desire to deal with families, do roundups,” he told reporters last month. “We only want to deal with people that commit crimes in Colorado.”
Mr. Mikesell says there are drug cartels operating in the county, where he’s found marijuana laced with fentanyl. He also says he’s begun investigating the suspected presence of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, declining to elaborate.
Sheriffs like Mr. Mikesell say that “sanctuary” policies harm immigrants by releasing criminal immigrants back into their own communities. Other critics have pointed to a 2019 case involving an unauthorized immigrant from Cuba who, according to ICE, was reportedly released from jail in Arapahoe County, Colorado, and then accused of attempted murder. However, the case was dismissed the following year.
John Fabbricatore, a former ICE official and co-founder of SAFE Colorado (Strong Advocates for Enforcement in Colorado), says coordination between local officials and ICE leads to more efficiency. Honoring ICE detainer requests at the local level would allow federal immigration officers to “stop people at the jail, and not have to go into neighborhoods and homes to make arrests.”
Mr. Mikesell has been trying to get his staff to work more closely with ICE and take on enhanced power. He’s been doing that through the use of a 287(g) agreement, a part of federal law that allows the Department of Homeland Security to deputize local officers to perform some federal immigration duties.
Teller County is currently the only Colorado law enforcement agency with such an agreement. Under it, the Teller County Sheriff’s Office arrested three people and detained them after they were eligible for release. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado sued Mr. Mikesell in 2019 over the sheriff's arrangement with ICE, claiming that he violated a new state law. The case ping-ponged between state courts.
This past summer, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the ACLU, but did not bar Teller County from having its 287(g) agreement. The case was sent back to a district court for conclusion, which clarified the role of the sheriff’s sole “designated immigration officer.” He says he’d like to train more deputies for the role.
Information sharing is an “inappropriate action for local law enforcement to take” and can “implicate other constitutional issues,” says Annie Kurtz, senior staff attorney at ACLU of Colorado. In Colorado, there needs to be an affirmative grant of state authority outlining local law enforcement action, she says.
Other sheriffs are watching. The sheriff of nearby El Paso County, home to Colorado Springs, is currently applying for a 287(g) agreement with the government, says a spokesperson. A decade earlier the county ended its prior agreement, saying it “duplicates efforts” of ICE.
Not all sheriffs, even if interested, are raising their hands to join. Some offices told the Monitor that they see the program as inappropriate engagement in federal immigration enforcement. Others are wary of litigation.
“I’m not going to be irresponsible with taxpayer dollars and risk a lawsuit,” Sheriff Darren Weekly of Douglas County said at a press conference last month.
Researchers have questioned the efficacy of these agreements. Immigrant advocates say that local law enforcement collaboration with ICE can lead to racial profiling, and discourages immigrants who fear reporting crimes.
Even with Colorado’s seemingly pro-immigrant stance, its policies fall short of what’s needed for “full integration of immigrants, which only Congress can do,” says Elizabeth Kiehne, an assistant professor at Colorado State University’s School of Social Work.
The White House, meanwhile, wants to make it easier to partner on immigration enforcement.
“Border czar” Tom Homan brought this message to the National Sheriffs’ Association conference last month. He raised plans to revise detention standards, reduce training time, and secure “full-scale indemnification” of local law enforcement.
“We’re doing everything we can to make it easier for you to help work with us,” Mr. Homan told the crowd to applause.
Publishing arrests by nationality
ICE has said that within Colorado it’s targeting Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. News of crimes by suspects whom officials have linked to the gang has rocked the city of Aurora since the summer. How law enforcement determines those gang affiliations, however, is not always clear.
Mr. Trump made a campaign stop in the city in October, where he announced a deportation campaign against migrant gangs called Operation Aurora. The crowd also heard from Mr. Weekly, “the proud Republican sheriff” of Douglas County, which includes a portion of the city.
The sheriff accused the Biden White House’s border policies of increasing security threats. He also cited that administration’s own FBI director, who publicly aired concerns about national security threats tied to illegal immigration.
Sheriff Weekly began publicizing the nationalities of arrestees in his own county last year.
“If we have criminals, I don’t care if you’re a migrant or you’re an American citizen,” he says. “We’re going to be transparent with the public.”
