A routine update to a Portland Police Bureau (PPB) policy dictating how officers interact with immigrants and federal immigration officials reveals an internal shift in how the bureau talks about immigration issues.
The updated policy directive adds language that humanizes immigrants and draws a clearer line between local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. The new changes go into effect today.
Some of PPB’s language tweaks are tiny, like the decision to change the phrase “non-citizens who have committed immigration violations” to “non-citizens who are alleged or suspected of having committed immigration violations.”
Other changes are more substantive, like this brand-new line in a section that sets the purpose of the policy directive: “Specifically, this directive establishes limitations into inquiries about immigration status and sets forth acceptable uses of immigration status information volunteered by an individual.”
These limits are laid out in far more detail than what existed in the directive’s previous iteration.
“If an individual volunteers their immigration status,” the new policy reads, “members shall not document immigration status solely or primarily for the purpose of federal immigration law enforcement.”
However, it adds, officers can ask about a person’s immigration status if it relates to a “legitimate law enforcement purpose” unrelated to enforcing federal immigration law. Those legit purposes aren’t defined.
Where the original policy simply states, “Members shall not arrest a person for the sole reason that they are an undocumented immigrant,” the revised version goes further to mandate: “Members shall not arrest a person for the sole reason that they: 1) are an undocumented immigrant present in the United States illegally; or 2) the subject of an ICE immigration enforcement action of investigation.”
PPB also chose to axe a definition of the term “undocumented immigrant” previously included in the directive. Instead, the policy only uses the phrase “immigrant,” or, when necessary, “an individual suspected of violating federal immigration law.”
Perhaps the most consequential update is a segment defining PPB’s relationship with federal immigration officials.
“In the event that ICE, [US Customs and Border Protection] or [US Enforcement and Removal Operations] requests the Bureau’s assistance for preplanned missions, only the Chief, or a designee, shall determine if the Bureau will provide assistance,” the directive reads.
It lists off three circumstances where PPB’s assistance is appropriate: When there is no federal officer available to do the job, when the assistance requested is not directly related to making an arrest, and when the police chief believes there is a threat to public safety if PPB officers don’t get involved.
Like any PPB directive facing routine updates, this one was shaped by feedback from members of the public. Many of the recommendations received during the 30-day public review period were folded into the final draft.
Yet PPB dodged one key recommendation submitted by immigration and civil rights lawyers with Innovation Law Lab (ILL) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon (ACLU). The new directive states that police are allowed to assist ICE officers in “auxiliary tasks not directly related to making arrest or detentions, such as traffic control or providing supplemental security.” But, according to ILL and the ACLU, this line may violate Oregon’s so-called “sanctuary state” law.
This law prohibits law enforcement agencies from using “agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons” whose only violation of federal immigration law is that they don’t have legal permission to be in the United States.
In a joint response to PPB’s proposed revisions, ILL and the ACLU write: “Any ‘auxiliary task’ that serves the purpose of supporting an ICE enforcement operation would violate [state law], regardless of whether it directly, or indirectly, facilitates the apprehension or detection of individuals suspected of violating immigration law.”
In short, even helping redirect traffic around an ICE raid can be considered a way of assisting federal immigration enforcement. The lawyers write that in these particular situations, PPB should focus solely on public safety, not on work that aides ICE’s “operational goals.”
PPB’s revisions come a year after activists held a weeks-long Occupy ICE protest outside of Southwest Portland’s ICE facility. During those protests, aides working for Mayor Ted Wheeler directed PPB to only respond to 911 calls originating from the demonstration site if someone’s life was in danger. National conservative leaders—like Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz—have repeatedly (and continuously) criticized Wheeler for making this call.
Wheeler’s 2018 decision seems to go beyond the updated directive, which gives PPB a green light to help ICE officers if public safety—not just someone’s life—is at stake.
Nevertheless, the policy sets a new legal precedent for how—and when—local law enforcement should engage with immigration officials.
In a document introducing the updates, PPB says it was motivated to make these changes after “recognizing the magnitude of the impact that assisting an immigration law enforcement agency could potentially have on the community.”
