By Isabella Senno
Compliance will be rewarded.
Senate File 481 was introduced and placed on the calendar on March 7 as a successor to Senate Study Bill 1172, which was first sponsored by Sen. Julian Garrett, R-Indianola.
SF481 is a revised version of the study bill that would require law-enforcement agencies to comply with federal immigration detainer requests for people held in custody and would also forbid local governments from discouraging officials or others from enforcing immigration laws.
“Some cities and counties both here in Iowa and around the country, including Johnson County here in Iowa, [have] officials saying that they’re not going to cooperate with the federal government in turning over people that are in custody and who are suspected of entering the county illegally,” Garrett said. “I just don’t think that’s proper; I think law-enforcement agencies should cooperate with each other.”
SF481 also provides various penalties against local governments who do not fall in line.
“The main thing is they can lose state money that would otherwise be going to them, that’s probably the most important sanction, and the reason behind that is not to deprive local governments of funding, it’s to make sure they comply,” Garrett said. “We don’t want to deprive anybody of funding, but we feel like we’ve got to have some kind of sanction to do the best we can to make sure they comply with the law.”
Under SF481, local governments who release individuals from custody after a detainer request has been filed would be held responsible for any damages resulting from potential felonies committed by those individuals for the next 10 years.
This has prompted some backlash from local governments, including the release of a joint statement from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office on March 5 that states that the sherriff will not honor these voluntary detainer requests.
“The bill puts a completely untenable burden on any county and any city. It requires the sheriff to comply with detainer requests … the sheriff can’t hold somebody without a warrant, so we’d be liable if he held somebody,” said county Supervisor Kurt Friese. “At the same time, they say if he lets them go, then the county’s liable for any actions of that person … which is not only draconian but also just simply untenable. The sheriff is then liable if he holds the person and liable if he lets them go. It feels as if the House and Senate Republicans are getting a little bit vindictive toward the actions of Johnson County.”
With regards to Iowa City, the new legislation may iaffect some city policies, particularly a new resolution that was passed on Jan. 17.
“Iowa City adopted a resolution reaffirming the public-safety function of local law enforcement,” said City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes. “We can’t remember a time when Iowa City law enforcement was involved in the enforcement of federal immigration law, which is both by law and in practice a function of the federal government. There is a provision in the bill that prevents cities from having a policy that they won’t enforce federal immigration, which is essentially what Iowa City’s resolution does.”
An argument has been raised by those who oppose these bills moving any further that requiring local law enforcement to participate in fulfilling detainer requests is unconstitutional.
“I’m not convinced that just based on sort of general constitutional law and knowledge that immigration detainers in general are constitutional, and so obviously if it’s unconstitutional to obey an immigration detainer in general, then the Legislature can’t require cities to do it,” said UI Associate Professor of law Paul Gowder. “The reason that I’m not convinced … is because you need probable cause to detain somebody. It’s not at all obvious that the federal government has the authority to say, ‘Actually, can you please hold onto this person outside of the normal bounds of the criminal system for a while?’ ”
Some would also argue that the more local versions of law enforcement do not have the proper authority to enforce federal civil rulings.
“It is not a criminal act to be an undocumented immigrant in America,” said Rep. Marti Anderson, D-Des Moines. “It is a violation of a federal administrative rule, and our law enforcement doesn’t have the authority or the time to dedicate to enforcing a federal administrative rule violation.”
Iowa is not alone in introducing policies such as these for debate in the Legislature. Faye Hipsman, policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute, said there has been a wave of similar legislation across the country, and the nation may see this movement gaining momentum with Republicans holding the majority of federal power.
