Camden Police Department walked back an agreement Tuesday with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Camden PD entered into a 287(g) agreement April 29, which gave local officers the ability to partner with ICE and enforce federal immigration laws. The Department rescinded the agreement after facing public backlash.
The Delaware ACLU and Delaware NAACP were among the groups condemning the partnership.
ACLU campaign manager Helen Salita oversees immigrant rights work. She said the agreement wasn’t announced publicly and ACLU of Delaware quickly condemned the agreement once her team confirmed it was in place.
“It erodes trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement,” Salita said. “The histories of civil rights violations [...] are well documented with 287(g) agreements, including racial profiling, especially if police departments aren't properly trained on all the nuances of immigration law.”
These agreements lead to an increase in profiling, people with documentation to be in the county being arrested and even citizens being detained by ICE, Salita said.
The Delaware ACLU and Delaware NAACP sent a letter to Camden’s chief of police, mayor and Town Council members. It stressed the negative effects of ICE cooperation on public safety.
“If immigrant communities were already wary of police, they will be doubly so if Camden Police Department does not follow through with withdrawing from the program and agrees to use local police to enforce immigration laws,” the letter reads.
Salita added this labor would also take away from resources, funding and manpower to address local issues. The ACLU published an action alert Tuesday directing people to reach out to Camden’s Town Council, mayor and chief of police in opposition to the agreement.
Delaware is once again one of four states with no active or pending ICE agreements, according to ICE’s website. The 287(g) program map says the agency is pursuing opportunities in states without agreements, including Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico and Vermont.
Salita said the swift reaction indicates where most Delawareans stand on the issue.
“No one wants to see this mass deportation here in Delaware. We don't want to be in any way sort of cooperating with that. So it was a pretty resounding no to any sort of agenda that would kind of back that up.”
Now that the partnership is cancelled, Salita said she wants to see legislation passed banning municipalities and state entities from entering into 287(g) agreements. California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Connecticut and New Jersey restrict agreements with ICE at the state level.
“We think that it is time that Delaware joins their rank,” Salita said. “We cannot count on being able to get an agency's withdrawal again in 24 hours. We also don't want to be stuck in an endless game of Whack a Mole with other localities that may want to enact this sort of agreement here in the state.”
Salita said her team also wants to see the Delaware legislature pass proactive immigration bills, including a bill that protects the data and privacy of immigrants. State Rep. Sean Lynn (D-Dover) is the primary sponsor for a five-bill package protecting immigrant rights in the First State.
House Bill 94 would prevent law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies on immigration enforcement at schools or churches without approval from the attorney general.
House Bill 95 would prohibit the Delaware Department of Education, public schools and company operators holding digital student data from sharing student information without permission from the Delaware Attorney General.
Similarly, House Bill 93 would restrict school resource officers and school constables from cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies without permission from the Attorney General. That will be considered at a Committee Hearing soon.
Salita said the ACLU’s final ask is calling on the governor to sign a non-cooperation executive order that would restrict Delaware’s resources, information or personnel from targeting vulnerable groups and their civil liberties.
“So for example, if we were to get a request to help to provide support for a mass raid or any sort of raid, our answer would be no unless the proper channels were followed,” Salita said.
Lynn’s five-bill package is at various stages of the legislative process. House Bill 44 and House Bill 95 were voted out of Committee with bipartisan support. House Bills 93, 94 and 96 will appear at Committee Hearings soon.
