Local sheriffs across the nation have voiced their support for President-elect Donald Trump’s intentions to launch a significant effort to deport undocumented immigrants from the United States. This statement of support is particularly resonant among Republican sheriffs, like Chuck Jenkins from Frederick County, Maryland, and Richard Jones from Butler County, Ohio. They communicated their approval to the Wall Street Journal, asserting that there is a growing public frustration with the current immigration policies, which they believe do not effectively address the influx of illegal migrants. Jenkins expressed his readiness to support Trump’s deportation agenda “100 percent,” emphasizing a willingness to work within legal frameworks to tackle the issue at hand.
Trump has asserted that his administration will undertake “the largest deportation effort in the history” of the United States, a claim confirmed by Karoline Leavitt, designated to be his White House press secretary. Leavitt stated that the deportation initiatives would commence promptly at the beginning of Trump’s presidency, with plans to target millions of undocumented immigrants. Jones echoed similar sentiments, reinforcing that public sentiment reflects a desire for stricter enforcement of immigration laws. Many local sheriffs have indicated their eagerness to collaborate closely with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to implement these plans effectively.
A significant part of Trump’s strategy involves strengthening the ICE’s 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement, including sheriffs, to assume certain immigration enforcement functions under ICE supervision. Reports indicate that Trump’s transition team aims to revitalize this program by reintroducing a previously dormant task force model. This model, in place prior to 2012, enabled local officers to engage with suspected noncitizens and enforce immigration laws within their communities during routine duties. Given the framework of the 287(g) program established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, ICE links this cooperative program with the improvement of safety in communities across the nation by facilitating the expeditious identification and removal of noncitizens involved in criminal activity.
Advocates for cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies emphasize the crucial role that local and state collaboration plays in the detainment and deportation of undocumented immigrants. RJ Hauman, president of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, asserts that such cooperation is essential to achieving effective immigration enforcement outcomes. This sentiment is echoed by several local sheriffs who regard Trump’s mass deportation strategies as feasible and necessary to restore public trust in the enforcement system. However, not all sheriffs share this viewpoint; some from regions like Los Angeles and Bristol County, Massachusetts, have openly disagreed with Trump’s approach, claiming that a partnership with ICE undermines trust with immigrant communities and is a drain on their available resources.
For instance, sheriffs in Los Angeles have instituted a “sanctuary city” ordinance designed to protect the rights of noncitizens, stating their law enforcement officers will not inquire about individuals’ immigration status. Meanwhile, the Bristol County sheriff in Massachusetts has publicly dismissed requests from ICE to detain undocumented immigrants with criminal backgrounds, signaling a clear departure from Trump’s national enforcement strategy. Critics of the proposed cooperation with ICE argue that such measures alienate immigrant communities and hamper effective policing efforts by introducing fear and distrust.
In response to this divide, Tom Homan, appointed by Trump as the border czar, has cautioned local officials against obstructing ICE agents. He reminds them that harboring or concealing an illegal alien from ICE constitutes a felony under federal law. Homan’s message emphasizes the need for local sheriffs to familiarize themselves with federal immigration laws to avoid potential legal repercussions. This legal and operational schism has heightened the debate surrounding immigration enforcement, putting some sheriffs at odds with both federal intentions and community expectations regarding immigrant rights and safety. The tension between the prioritization of strict immigration enforcement and the necessity for comprehensive community trust underscores the complexities of managing immigration policy at local and national levels.
