The office of Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is walking back controversial comments Dart made recently in an interview to a local public broadcasting station. In an interview with Chip Mitchell of WBEZ, Dart suggested that he’s reconsidering policies in which the Sheriff’s office would hold illegal aliens detained at the jail for forty-eight hours past the completion of their sentence in order for Immigration and Custom Enforcement to come pick them up and detain them on immigration violations.
Dart suggested he was considering the legal ramifications of releasing illegal aliens immediately upon the completion of their sentences, something the San Francisco County Sheriff’s office has recently begun to do.
“It does not lend itself to a sense of community where people will gladly come to you with information about crimes, get involved as a witness, even come forward as a victim, frankly,” said Dart to Mitchell in the interview of the current policy which mandates that all illegal aliens be held an extra forty-eight hours in order for ICE to come and detain them.
The controversial comments generated responses from all sides of this debate. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle issued a statement in support, “I applaud Sheriff Dart’s recent public statement highlighting the troubling inconsistencies in current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies that are in place at the Cook County Jail system. The disincentive for the thousands of immigrants in our County- including lawful immigrants and permanent residents- to cooperate with law enforcement places a great strain on our communities.”
Preckwinkle continued, “This serves as a perfect example of the need for our Federal lawmakers to enact comprehensive immigration reform.”
In an email, however, Cook County Sheriff’s spokesperson Steve Patterson distanced the office from Dart’s initial comments, “There have not been – and according to legal opinions can not be – any changes to the policies or practices in how the Cook County Sheriff’s Office handles immigration detainers, nor is there any effort to investigate ways to change those policies or practices.”
Patterson continued, “The story is wrong and was pointed out to the reporter.”
Chip Mitchell, the reporter on the story, stood by its accuracy in an email and said that Dart’s office told him nothing was inaccurate with the piece after it was filed.
Patterson didn’t respond to further emails and a phone call asking for specific inaccuracies.
Proponents of strict enforcement of immigration law responded angrily when asked for comment on Dart’s original assertions. William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said, “as soon as one of those kills somebody, I hope they’ll put him (Dart) in prison.”
Rick Biesada of the Chicago Minuteman Project said, “They are passing the buck. There is no law that prohibits local law enforcement with performing the duties of ICE to arrest, or process illegal immigrants.”
Biesada also pointed out, “The court system has a person inside the County Court House, whose job requires that person contact ICE when an illegal offender wanted on a warrant, or convicted of committing a felony before they get out. This is part of the process it has nothing to do with the Sheriff’s role, or to inconvenience the Sheriff’s Police. Dart is trying to pass the buck.”
Not everyone reacted harshly. Maricela Garcia, Communication’s director in the Chicago office of the National Council of La Raza said that Sheriff’s departments must use discretion between those stopped for routine traffic violations and those that are dangerous criminals.
“Dangerous criminals should be removed from the community,” said Garcia. Garcia said that the proper policy is to give discretion to local sheriffs. “We need to listen to what the sheriff’s think is a dangerous criminal,” continuing, “their responsibility is to keep the community safe from crime.”
Biesada also highlighted another problem. Both Dart and Preckwinkle used the euphemism immigrant to describe those aliens that entered the country illegally. Biesada said, “Immigrants is the compassionate term to use when you don’t want to describe illegal aliens, people residing in this country unlawfully. Just lump in legal resident aliens, along with unlawful illegal aliens then try to gain the sympathy of an ignorant society.
“Dart and Preckwinkle are both violating federal law. They are aiding and abetting illegal aliens and conducting business in a sanctuary city in violation of federal law … which is still the Supreme Law of the Land. It trumps city ordinances, home rule, city and state law,” Biesada said.
Related posts:
Interesting comments from all sides. People do not appreciate how lucky they are to have been born in this country as an American.
Sad, how we continue to place a spin of definitions to rule the day. A few weeks ago the Supreme Court could’nt fully define what “deviant” means. Regarding the military incursion into Libya the Constitutional counsul for the Senate expressed it depends on how you define “hostilities” in the War Powers Act? Now we need to define “dangerous”. A person who crosses the border illegally is “dangerous” since we have no idea what there intent is when crossing the border illegally. Sanctuary cities exist for one purpose, to harbor law breakers.