The Immigrant Experience: Debate on ICE holds continues

CEDAR RAPIDS - Five months after the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa sent a letter to Iowa's 99 county sheriffs that recommended they no longer comply with detainer requests from the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the organization still is in the dark about roughly 75 percent of Iowa's sheriffs and their stance on ICE holds.

According to ACLU Iowa, 25 county sheriffs have told them that they will no longer honor ICE detainer requests - civil holds of up to 48 hours to allow officials to check the immigration status of an individual booked in a county jail.

ACLU Iowa does not have numbers on the counties that still abide by ICE requests. However, a number have been identified in media reports.

One of those sheriffs, Marshall County's Ted Kamatchus, said the issue comes down to public safety and deferring to federal law and those determined by the federal government to be experts on which immigrants pose a threat.

'I think it's a federal issue,” Kamatchus said. 'For me, when the federal guidelines are set and federal law is enacted, I would be remiss in not following those guidelines.

'My take on it is that if I don't know who this person is, and they've openly told me they're foreign born (and don't have documentation), ...

I just don't think my people are as well qualified to determine whether this person is a threat to society,” Kamatchus added.

At the Marshall County Jail, when someone is booked on a criminal charge and indicates he or she is foreign born without any documentation to show legal status in the United States, Kamatchus said his deputies will inform the ICE office in Des Moines. ICE officials then will determine if a 48-hour hold is required so they can speak with the individual or gather more information.

If ICE asks for a hold, Kamatchus and his deputies grant that request.

Kamatchus's policy was routine in many counties across Iowa previously and hardly noteworthy. But that was before a court case in Oregon had county sheriffs, advocacy groups and others taking a hard look at those procedures.

On March 14, 2012, Maria Miranda-Olivares was arrested for violating a domestic abuse protective order and booked at the Clackamas County Jail. The following day, the jail received a detainer request from ICE, which it honored.

Miranda-Olivares was told she could not leave the jail, even if she posted the $500 bail. She remained in custody on state charges until March 29 but was not allowed to leave for an additional 19 hours because of the ICE detainer.

Miranda-Olivares filed a lawsuit against the county, arguing that the detainer was not mandatory and constituted false imprisonment.

In April 2014, a judge found in her favor.

Following the ruling, ACLU of Iowa sent a letter to Iowa county sheriffs, informing them that ICE detainer requests 'do not provide independent legal authority to detain a person.” Further, the organization said that complying with those holds could set up the counties for additional lawsuits.

At least 25 county sheriffs - including those in Linn, Johnson, Iowa and Benton counties - heeded ACLU's warning and shifted their policies. Others, such as Kamatchus and Buena Vista County Sheriff Douglas Simons, are standing pat.

Simons declined to comment on his department's policies or on others who still honor ICE requests.

'I'm not the spokesman for these other 72 sheriffs and I don't want to be,” Simons said. 'We're going to go about our business.”

For Kamatchus, it comes down to letting the immigration experts handle immigration issues.

'ICE is more qualified to determine if someone is a threat than I am,” he said. 'Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect ...

'Do I feel like we're violating some kind of constitutional law? No, I don't. These are the individuals who are deemed by federal authorities to be experts on immigration. I'm going to defer to the experts.”

For ICE's part, the organization will 'continue to work cooperatively with law enforcement partners throughout Iowa as the agency seeks to enforce its priorities by identifying and removing convicted criminal aliens and other public safety threats,” said ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer in an email to The Gazette.

'ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that targets serious criminal aliens who present the greatest threat to our communities,” Neudauer added. 'ICE carefully considers and reviews the merits of each case and takes appropriate action on a case-by-case basis.”

Removal numbers for the ICE Saint Paul field office - which includes Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota - show a shift in enforcement efforts for the organization. In fiscal year 2011, there were 2,281 removals of individuals deemed to be 'other priorities” - those who do not have a criminal record but were determined to be immigrations enforcement priorities, Neudauer said.

That presented 40 percent of all removals. That same year, there were 3,467 criminals deported in the region, or 60 percent of all removals.

By fiscal year 2013, the number of 'other priority” removals in this region dropped to 704 - 20 percent of all removals - and the number of criminal removals decreased to 2,847.

Neudauer said removal numbers fluctuate from year to year. At the same time, ICE also is focusing its efforts on law breakers, he said.

'By targeting our efforts on egregious criminal offenders, we are narrowing our enforcement focus while making the best use of our resources,” Neudauer said. 'Over the past few years, ICE has been able to focus more resources on criminal aliens.”

When it comes to detainer requests, Erica Johnson, immigrants' rights and racial justice advocate for the ACLU of Iowa, questioned whether people who are serious criminals are being caught up in the detainer requests.

She pointed to information gathered by the University of Iowa College of Law's Clinical Law Programs and included in a fact sheet sent to the 99 sheriffs.

According to that data:

' Of the 43 ICE detainer requests received in Johnson County in 2013, many were for those booked on misdemeanor offenses such as drunken driving, trespass and traffic violations.

' Of the 488 detainer requests in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 in Polk County, 70 percent were for individuals with no prior convictions.

l One percent of the 107 individuals placed on detainers in Pottawattamie County in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 were ever convicted of a serious crime.

' Of the 15 individuals subjected to a detainer in Wapello County in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, 11 were never convicted of any crime.

Neudaer said immigrants targeted by ICE have committed a range of offenses, from aggravated felonies to misdemeanors. Some have not committed any other crimes, he said.

'In some cases, an individual who may not otherwise have a criminal record might remain an ICE priority due to their immigration history,” he said.

While ICE policies differ from county to county in Iowa, Don DeKock, a deputy with Mahaska County and president of the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Assocation, said the association has not weighed in on the matter.

'I don't know how to answer whether there's a concern or not a concern,” DeKock said. 'Each jail has its own set of policies and procedures ...

It's individual sheriffs who set their policies and procedures.”

Johnson said she doesn't know what will happen with the sheriffs who still honor ICE requests. For ACLU of Iowa's part, it might mean follow up meetings with the sheriffs and information sessions with residents so they know their rights regarding arrests and the duration limits of detainers.

For Kamatchus, who said he's talked to ACLU of Iowa about his decision, he hopes the organization simply tries to understand his position.

'I just think we have to be careful and we have to use the process that's laid down before us,” he said. 'If any group manages to change that process, I'm in favor of it. If the Supreme Court says it's illegal, then I'll recognize that and I'll change.

'I just don't think individual groups - who are acting in good faith - should dictate policy. I think the safety of the citizens is the most important thing.”