 |
Freshwater Pond, Enfield CT
|
Concern is high, generally, about what happens when ICE makes a concerted push in our community. Would we see something similar to Minnesota? That operation involved a saturation surge -- of more than 2,000 agents into the Twin Cities -- that overwhelmed local police capability.
The question becomes do all communities face a similar risk, especially from agents that don't seem well-trained in de-escalation techniques.
Enfield is too small of a town to get a massive ICE response. But it is the practice of ICE to operate independently from local police departments, which creates its own set of risks.
Connecticut has a law, the Connecticut Trust Act, that sets some restrictions on what local police can do to help federal immigration enforcement. The Trust Act explicitly forbids local police from assisting federal agents unless specific serious criteria are met.
But does the Trust Act protect residents, or does it just keep local police from helping in certain circumstances?
To be clear, reasonable people have different views on federal immigration enforcement, but the focus here is on how Enfield handles community safety when federal agents operate independently of local police.
Someone dinged me recently and asked what our community is doing to support immigrants in this environment. I had no answer to that broad question, but sometimes it's best to start with specific avenues of approach. I wrote a FOIA request to the town for "Any current written policy regarding Enfield Police Department interactions with federal immigration officials (ICE/CBP)."
De-escalation Concerns
I explained my reasoning in the request: "Passions are high on this issue and there are legitimate concerns about the de-escalation capabilities of ICE agents. In contrast, EPD officers are highly trained and people trust them, so I think there is interest in knowing how EPD will protect Enfield residents from any problems."
To be honest, when I wrote that, the shooting by an ICE agent of Renee Nicole Good, was top of mind. While the interpretation of what happened is highly politicized, certainly there is a strong case to be made that there was failure of de-escalation and that was an underlying concern.
The FOIA was sent to the town manager and cc'ed the mayor and police chief. There was a quick response from Chief Alaric Fox:
"The Enfield Police Department maintains no such policy. All interactions of department members in any such context are regulated and controlled by the Connecticut Trust Act as set forth within the Connecticut General Statutes."
That’s the official answer. But it leaves a question unanswered: Will local police arrive at the scene of an ICE action to protect our residents?
The Role of Local Police
Seattle sheds some light on how this may be resolved. In a recent statement, its police department wrote that it "received a call from a concerned community member reporting that three unidentified men were approached and arrested by ICE agents."
Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes
wrote:
"The officers on scene verified the individuals were there conducting federal law enforcement duties and documented the interaction after speaking with supervisors."
The chief continued, "We have no authority over federal agents, but we will document all incidents and protect the rights of all people in the city."
But there are limits to the role Seattle PD will play.
In an email Jan. 15, acquired by a
news outlet, PublicCola, the Seattle Police Department outlined a policy of not interfering with respect to ICE.
PublicCola published some excerpts: “If there is reasonable concern that approaching may escalate risk, officers should maintain distance, request additional resources, and coordinate verification through dispatch or a supervisor."
What's Next for Enfield
Existing law in Seattle, PublicCola wrote, already bars police from assisting ICE but also not to intervene.
Connecticut has passed the Trust Act that prevents local law enforcement from sharing information with ICE unless required by law. The bill was amended last year along party lines, allowing individuals to sue a town that violates it's provisions, but also expands the type of crimes that will trigger local police cooperation.
It's fair to assume that at some point Enfield will be subject to ICE interest, if it hasn't already. So maybe this is an issue that needs a little more local attention. How does the community respond? And should we be talking about it?
Comments