Doubling Down on Police Deputization: A Misguided Strategy for Public Safety

The proposed SB1164 in Arizona seeks to expand Section 287(g) of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act. This section allows local law enforcement agencies to partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), enabling selected officers to enforce specific immigration laws.

Currently, only five law enforcement agencies in Arizona have established agreements with ICE, but SB1164 aims to change that. The legislation would require that “at least 10% of officers in every law enforcement agency in the state participate in the program.” Through this mandate, local officers would receive training to handle immigration enforcement tasks.

While many Arizonans may advocate for stricter immigration enforcement, there are concerns about whether this measure will effectively reduce crime. Research indicates that immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. A significant amount of crime attributed to immigrants consists mostly of immigration-related offenses.

A 2020 study by the Cato Institute highlighted that illegal immigrants were 40% less likely to be arrested than their native counterparts, and they had a conviction rate significantly lower for property crimes. Despite increasing immigration since 1980, the U.S. crime rate has notably declined by over 60%.

Critics of the legislation argue that SB1164 perpetuates misconceptions around crime rates associated with immigrants. For instance, economist John R. Lott Jr. suggested that undocumented immigrants have higher prison admission rates; however, other experts contest his methodology, pointing out that his data conflates legal and illegal residents.

Moreover, studies show that 287(g) programs do not lead to a reduction in crime. An assessment of North Carolina’s implementation of such agreements found no significant decrease in crime, attributing any reductions to broader national trends. Alarmingly, there was an increase in assaults against police officers linked to the activation of 287(g) agreements.

Community trust in law enforcement can also diminish under such programs. Residents in areas with 287(g) agreements often feel less inclined to report crimes due to fears of racial profiling and immigration enforcement. These dynamics can lead to lower collaboration with police, ultimately hindering crime prevention efforts.

Furthermore, Arizona faces a pressing shortage of police officers, with major departments like the Phoenix Police Department lacking hundreds of personnel. The SB1164 requirement that 10% of officers focus on immigration enforcement risks further straining these already limited resources.

Law enforcement leaders themselves have expressed skepticism about SB1164, suggesting that immigration enforcement should remain a federal responsibility. Evidence suggests that 287(g) agreements do not enhance public safety but rather divert vital resources away from local policing.

In conclusion, proponents of SB1164 need to reconsider its implications for Arizona’s communities and law enforcement capabilities.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.