Why Local Cooperation with ICE Is Essential for Public Safety and the Rule of Law

Public safety and the rule of law are at the center of Berks County’s ICE cooperation debate. Illustration: The Mifflin Report Opinion / Editorial By Lazaro Castellon At recent public meetings—including this week’s Berks County Commissioners’ meeting—local residents voiced strong opposition to the county’s voluntary cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Among those speaking were Craig Schaefer of Cumru Township , who urged commissioners to hold special public hearings to reconsider the policy, and Jane Palmer of Wyomissing , who criticized the transfer of inmates to federal custody and called for expanded video archiving of Prison Board proceedings. But there is another part of this debate that deserves scrutiny. Some of the same people demanding that local government end cooperation with ICE have also supported or participated in public-school and political walkouts. People have every right to protest, demonstrate, speak at public meetings, and criticize government policy. That freedom is fundamental to our republic. But elected officials also have a responsibility to distinguish political activism from the practical responsibility of protecting the public. Public Safety Matters—Especially When You Actually Experience Its Consequences Public safety should matter to everyone. But there is something striking about people who live in relatively insulated communities, where violent crime may rarely touch their daily lives, lecturing communities that deal more directly with crime and disorder about what policies they should support. If you live in an area where crime is not a daily concern, it is easy to become detached from the consequences of policies that can affect public safety. The people who pay the price when the criminal-justice system fails are not political commentators sitting comfortably on the sidelines. They are victims, families, police officers, businesses, and working people living in communities where crime is a very real concern. That disconnect deserves to be acknowledged. What Are They Actually Advocating? The question is not whether every person who opposes ICE cooperation wants crime to increase. That would be unfair and inaccurate. The question is whether certain policies make communities safer or make it harder for law enforcement to do its job. When local governments restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities, limit communication, or make it more difficult to transfer individuals already in custody, they can create additional obstacles for law enforcement. And we should be willing to examine the results. Look at major American cities such as New York and Los Angeles , and look at California more broadly. The debates surrounding immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies, crime, homelessness, drug use, and public disorder have not occurred in a vacuum. We should examine the evidence rather than dismissing concerns as fearmongering. When Ideology Comes Before Results There is also a deeper issue. When political ideology becomes more important than measurable outcomes, people can become more committed to defending a policy than evaluating whether that policy actually works. That is where racial ideology can enter the conversation —when immigration enforcement is automatically characterized as racist based on who is affected, rather than evaluating the conduct, the law, and the circumstances involved. The law should not be applied according to race. It should not be applied according to political ideology. And it should not be applied differently because activists have decided that one category of enforcement is morally unacceptable. A person’s race does not determine whether they should be held accountable for a crime. At the same time, immigration status should not be confused with criminal guilt. Due process remains essential. Local courts must determine local criminal charges, while federal authorities handle federal immigration matters. Those principles can—and should—exist together. The Walkout Question This is also why the activism surrounding this issue deserves examination. Some of the same people who have supported or participated in walkouts and other forms of political disruption now portray cooperation between law-enforcement agencies as somehow beyond the pale. But political activism does not automatically make a policy correct. You cannot celebrate disruption when it advances your political cause and condemn lawful cooperation when it advances a policy you oppose. The standard should be consistent. Cooperation Is Not Surrender Local cooperation with ICE does not mean surrendering local control to Washington. It means recognizing that different levels of government have different responsibilities. Local law enforcement handles local public safety. Federal authorities enforce federal law. When those responsibilities overlap, communication and cooperation can prevent dangerous gaps. If an individual is already inside a secure county facility, a coordinated transfer can be far safer than requiring federal agents to locate that person later in a neighborhood, workplace, or other public setting. That is not radical. That is responsible law enforcement. The People Who Never Get Heard Public meetings naturally attract the most politically active citizens. But commissioners represent everyone—including the people who never attend a meeting, never organize a protest, and never stand behind a microphone. They represent the victim whose home is burglarized. The business owner dealing with repeated theft. The family worried about violence. The police officer who has to respond when something goes wrong. Those people deserve a voice in this conversation too. Public safety cannot become secondary to political ideology. We should debate immigration policy honestly. We should demand transparency. We should protect due process. We should hold government accountable. But we should also recognize reality. If a policy makes it harder to identify, detain, or transfer individuals who are subject to federal immigration enforcement, we should at least be willing to ask whether that policy makes our communities safer—not simply whether it makes activists feel better about their politics. The standard should be simple: Protect the public. Follow the law. Respect due process. And judge policies by their results—not by the ideology behind them. The Mifflin Report is an independent community resource providing local news and school district financial accountability coverage in Berks County. This guest editorial reflects the opinion of the author and is not affiliated with the Governor Mifflin School District or Berks County government.