The Scott County Sheriff’s Office is facing criticism for its partnership with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), granting Scott County law enforcement officers “the authority to perform certain immigration enforcement functions.”
The agreement authorizes Scott County officers to interrogate anyone suspected of being an illegal alien and to “process for immigration violations those individuals who have been arrested for State or Federal criminal offenses.” Other powers include the ability to serve and execute arrest warrants for immigration violations, issue immigration detainers, and maintain custody of aliens on behalf of ICE.
This agreement is not uncommon under the second Trump administration, with ICE delegating immigration enforcement duties to state and local police in light of an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, known as 287(g).
Section 287(g) has allowed for such partnerships since 1996, but since President Trump’s second inauguration, the number of participating sheriff and police departments has more than doubled nationally, with Scott County being one of the most recent editions.
Some in Scott County are outraged, with one citizen describing the action as undermining “public trust in law enforcement.” The same individual went on to demand to know who was consulted in making this decision.
But Georgetown is just the most recent controversy concerning the enforcement of immigration laws in Kentucky. After months of resistance, Louisville ceased to be a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants in August of this year after being pressured to do so by the Trump administration. This, too, sparked outrage, with Amber Duke of the ACLU of Kentucky describing the action as undermining “the trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement.” The ACLU has also described 287(g) partnerships as efforts to “empower racist sheriffs.”
Each of these critiques against ICE and their partners ignores the purpose of law enforcement—namely, to enforce the law. Disparaging the motives of law enforcement officers does not change that fundamental duty.
Laws are meaningless if not enforced and such enforcement does undermine public trust—in fact, it elevates it. A society that expects its laws to be ignored cannot truly claim to be governed by them. If law enforcement cannot be trusted to enforce the law, then what exactly should they be trusted to do? Those who object to this arrangement appear to imagine a kind of “public trust” in which criminals are assured of leniency and officers are expected to look the other way. Trust built on such selective enforcement is not trust at all. Far from enforcing the law, it creates a culture where officers turn a blind eye the very laws they are sworn to enforce.
Those questioning who was “consulted” concerning the partnership between the Scott County Sheriff’s Office and ICE should look no further than their own friends and neighbors. Laws are drafted and adopted by elected representatives. When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996—containing the 287(g) provision—was up for vote, both Kentucky Senators—one Democrat and one Republican—voted “Yea,” as did five out of six of Kentucky’s congressmen. Interestingly, so did then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. The Bill was then signed into law by President Bill Clinton, another Democrat, who stated that the Bill “strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system.”
This voting record not only illustrates how a once common-sense issue became rife with political controversy, but it also shows that the debate over Scott County’s partnership with ICE is not simply about immigration. It is rather, at its core, about the rule of law. Enforcing some statutes while ignoring others erodes public trust. It also undermines the integrity of the political process, by which Americans, acting through their representatives, enacted 287(g) in the first place. Such selective enforcement is not compassionate but rather the quiet abandonment of law itself.