Sheriffs and Mass Deportation, The Early Days

January 29. 2024

Hamilton County, Indiana, has a sheriff (and a chief deputy/ sheriff candidate) who are eager to support “mass deportations.”

Across the country, sheriffs have been reacting to Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders. Most sheriffs have parroted Tom Homan’s party line that immigration arrests and detention are targeting people with criminal histories, despite recent reporting suggesting this is not true. Homan’s statements do not align with the Trump administration’s executive orders, which have eliminated immigration priorities and allow for the arrest and detention of anyone who might be deportable.

At the moment, NO law gives sheriffs the right to enforce immigration law outside of the jail, through traffic stops or arrests for example. In Pima County, the sheriff believed he was taking a stand when he insisted he would “not enforce” the Laken Riley Act (just signed by Trump) even though the LRA in fact requires nothing of sheriffs. We can expect more confusion (real or intentional) over the role of local LEO in immigration enforcement as ICE arrests and propaganda escalate.

The National Sheriffs Association have proved themselves to be vigorous supporters of Trump’s deportation plans. In a right-wing publication, NSA CEO Jonathan Thompson compared the Trump administration to “going from a dark, cold storage room with air on full blast to a room that’s wide open with opportunities and that’s welcoming.” NSA’s president Sheriff Kieran Donahue of Idaho has expressed his excitement over “mass deportation” – he says that Trump assured the sheriffs he would declare certain transnational gangs as "terrorist organizations.” Donahue has also expressed support for more involvement of sheriffs in local immigration enforcement, which sounds like he would like sheriff deputies to do more street patrols and make immigration arrests (which no law currently allows).

These comments conflict with Thompson’s statements in November and December, in which Thompson downplayed “mass deportations” by attributing them to “hysteria.” In early December, Thompson, alongside Sheriff Michael Chapman of Loudon County, Virginia, testified before a house committee to the dangers of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua; he argued sheriffs needed more resources, namely surveillance technology, in order to defeat this new threat.

In North Carolina, Sheriff Kevin White of Franklin County, posted an anti-immigrant screed on Facebook, which reads, in part, “Federal efforts to detain, capture, and deport ILLEGAL immigrants have begun. Efforts by state agencies to stop deportation efforts will not be tolerated.” This fall, White toured Western North Carolina with then-Lieutenant Governor and “Black Nazi” Mark Robinson, handing out bottles of water to hurricane victims on the Franklin County dime. The Assembly wrote about Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page who is also a huge supporter of Donald Trump and recites the blanket “every state is a border state” talking point, despite a mere fraction of arrests attributable to immigrants.

In California, sheriffs are reacting to the new presidential regime with a mixed bag of responses. Current California law limits the amount of cooperation between sheriffs and ICE; this does not mean there is NO cooperation. Rather, sheriffs in California cannot enter in 287(g) agreements, cannot hold people beyond their release time, and can only “share information” with ICE in a sort of round-about way. (This is a fairly common practice in many places. Arrest data is generally public information, so agencies like ICE can monitor it.)

Some sheriffs have chafed openly at California’s law. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and San Diego Sheriff Kelly Martinez appear willing to openly flout it. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes has expressed his disdain for state law, but stopped short of saying he would not follow it. (Another state with similar state laws and sheriffs expressing somewhat mixed messages about their enforcement priorities is Colorado.)

The Trump administration has also restarted approving 287(g) agreements, which allow deputies inside the jail to act as immigration agents. (Here is a list of pending 287(g) applications.) Miami-Dade, for example, recently had their 287(g) application processed. (The newly-elected sheriff there initially expressed support for immigrants, but was later forced to say she would absolutely cooperate with ICE. Florida state law requires that sheriffs enter into 287(g) agreements or something similar.)

In the Midwest, sheriffs are also entering into 287(g) agreements and housing people arrested by ICE. Hamilton County, Indiana, Sheriff Dennis Quakenbush, a vigorous Trump supporter, said, “This is about individuals who have committed crimes and are here in our country illegally. We are going to make sure they are held accountable and that they are removed so our community is safe." To top it all off, Richard Jones, the Butler County, Ohio, sheriff, went on television and said that, in some cases, he thought some people should not be deported so they could experience American jails and prisons. “Would I rather see them get a taste of our prison,” he mused, as the camera panned over prison-style bunk beds.