An End to the Co-optation of Local Law Enforcement for Federal Immigration Enforcement
Hundreds of local jurisdictions restrict cooperation with immigration enforcement to some extent. The vast majority of these restrictions aim to stop the co-optation of local law enforcement, because over the last decade, the federal government has increasingly relied on local criminal justice systems as force multipliers to carry out immigration enforcement.
Cities and counties can resist these tactics through a variety of laws and policies limiting the extent to which local resources, ostensibly devoted to public safety and crime prevention, can be diverted to support enforcement of civil immigration laws. In doing so, they can make clear that local resources and local government prioritizes the safety and inclusion of all residents, regardless of immigration status. Find our full evaluation tool on ending the co-optation of local law enforcement for federal immigration enforcement here.
“The Department of Homeland Security has spent decades co-opting the resources of local governments for its detention and deportation machinery, but localities have no legal obligation to help deport their residents. Rather, local governments’ withdrawal from participation in deportations is the first line of defense for immigrant communities. City and county governments have shown that they can lead the way, but there is always a need to push further.”
— Lena Graber, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
See how 12 cities compare on ending co-optation of law enforcement for federal immigration enforcement.
This interactive tool allows you to sort by different criteria, city size, and overall score. Click on a city name to see the full policy research on that jurisdiction, including citations.
= On Track to a Strong Policy
= Making Progress With Need for Improvement
= Significant Room for Improvement
| Summary | Population | i Custody | i Immigration Interviews | i Rights Tranings | i Release Notification | i Information Sharing | i Status Inquiry | i Collaboration Policies | i Contracts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago | a On Track to a Strong Policy | 2.7m Population | 1 Custody i | 1 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 1 Release Notification i | 2 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 3 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Dallas i | Significant Room for Improvement | 1.3m Population | 3 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 3 Status Inquiry i | 3 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Durham i | Significant Room for Improvement | $257 257k Population |
3 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 3 Status Inquiry i | 3 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Louisville | Significant Room for Improvement | $615 615k Population |
1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 1 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Madison | Significant Room for Improvement | $249 249k Population |
1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 2 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Minneapolis | Significant Room for Improvement | $411 411k Population |
1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 1 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| New York City | Significant Room for Improvement | 8.6m Population | 1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 2 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 2 Status Inquiry i | 2 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| San Diego | Significant Room for Improvement | 1.4m Population | 1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 1 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 1 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| San Francisco | Making Progress With Need for Improvement | $864 864k Population |
1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 1 Release Notification i | 1 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 2 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Seattle | Significant Room for Improvement | $688 688k Population |
1 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 1 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| St. Louis i | Significant Room for Improvement | $315 315k Population |
3 Custody i | 3 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 3 Release Notification i | 3 Information Sharing i | 3 Status Inquiry i | 3 Collaboration Policies i | 1 Contracts i |
| Washington, D.C. | a On Track to a Strong Policy | $672 672k Population |
1 Custody i | 1 Immigration Interviews i | 3 Rights Tranings i | 1 Release Notification i | 2 Information Sharing i | 1 Status Inquiry i | 1 Collaboration Policies i | 2 Contracts i |
Methodology
Center for Popular Democracy researchers evaluated each jurisdiction based on a full set of policy criteria as developed in the Reform/Transform toolkit in collaboration with policy experts and advocates. Because the original tool is lengthy and the questions are numerous, we organized the full list of questions into a smaller number of thematic groupings. This process yielded eight broad groupings of questions (which encompassed all of the sub-questions from the original, full-length tool). Read more »
An acknowledgement: This project aims to evaluate policy and to give policymakers, organizers, and activists the tools to push stronger policies on police reform. We recognize that lived experience and implementation of policy are crucial in their own right and may well differ from the stated policy on the books.
