Listen to “A Bounty for Immigration Arrests in WV?” on Spreaker.
A story published October 1 in The Wall Street Journal says the Doddridge County Sheriff’s Department has been taking part in President Trump’s deportation campaign since February.
According to the Journal’s reporting, Sheriff Clinton Boring “had his sights on new squad cars.”
“I honestly don’t think there are any Hispanics that live in Doddridge,” Boring told Journal reporters. Despite that, he went on to say, “When you get an opportunity to get possibly $100,000 for equipment or vehicles, that’s a no-brainer.”
The story reported that Doddridge County had detained two people living in the United States illegally since the program began and had received more than $137,000 in federal funds. Those arrests resulted from traffic stops on U.S. Route 50. The department is eligible for added payments under the terms of the agreement.
Pew Research data cited by the Journal shows immigrants living in the country illegally make up about 1 percent of West Virginia’s workforce.
Doddridge County is not alone. Many other West Virginia agencies participate as well.
Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny wrote about the 287(g) program in February, including the financial incentives and what agencies were participating.
Sheriff Boring responded to a text invitation to join Talkline Monday, saying he was unsure about appearing.
Read the full Wall Street Journal story here.
Analysis
People who reside in this country illegally are violating federal immigration law. Any respect for the rule of law must acknowledge that violations carry consequences. A police officer in West Virginia who lawfully detains someone and turns that person over to the proper federal authorities is simply enforcing the law.
An officer upholding the law is not a source of complaint.
But attaching substantial financial incentives to enforcement decisions creates a different concern.
It introduces money into a decision that ought to be based solely on the law, public safety and sound police judgment. And even when officers act entirely appropriately, the appearance of a financial motive can cast doubt on the integrity of the process.
West Virginia has wrestled with versions of that problem before.
Under the 1931 West Virginia Code, a justice of the peace was entitled to charge 50 cents “for every warrant of arrest or commitment.” Other fees included $1 for a trial, $1 for examining an accused person, 50 cents for certain bonds and other itemized charges.
Constables received one dollar for an arrest in the case of a felony, while a fee of 60 cents was due for an arrest in cases other than felony.
West Virginia eventually moved away from systems in which officials exercising judicial or law-enforcement authority were compensated through fees tied to particular actions.
For good reason.
Temptation finds all of us easily enough during the course of life. There is little reason to deliberately build additional temptation — or even the appearance of it — into the laws and policies governing the exercise of government power.
Then there is the broader immigration question.
Should we want everyone living in the country illegally rounded up and removed?
A difficult question often produces a nuanced answer.
Someone who commits a violent or heinous crime? There is little mystery about the public sentiment there. Remove that person.
But what about the waiter you have come to know, the roofer, the laborer doing work that employers struggle to fill, or the family that has built a life here, pays taxes and has children playing sports alongside yours?
Many Americans likely view those cases differently.
That distinction deserves more discussion than our immigration debate often allows.
But regardless of where someone falls on immigration policy, the question raised by this program is narrower: Should law-enforcement agencies receive financial rewards connected to immigration enforcement activity?
We would rightly scrutinize a system that paid police officers more for writing additional tickets, making more arrests or reaching enforcement quotas.
The same principle deserves consideration here.
If someone is detained and federal immigration authorities want custody, turn that person over according to the law.
But doing it without a financial incentive would remove a question that should never have to be asked about a police officer’s actions:
Was this about enforcing the law — or about the money?