DepartmentofCriminologyandCriminalJustice IMMIGRATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT: RESULTS FROM A STATE CENSUS OF POLICE EXECUTIVES South Carolina Law Enforcement Census 2012 JustinNix,M.A. JeffRojek,Ph.D. RobertJ.Kaminski,Ph.D. December2012
TableofContents INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND METHODS FINDINGS 1 3 5 8 AGENCYINFORMATION GENERALISSUESANDPERSPECTIVESREGARDINGHISPANIC/LATINOIMMIGRATION INTERACTIONWITHIMMIGRATIONANDCUSTOMSENFORCEMENT(ICE) DEPARTMENTPOLICIESANDPRACTICESRELATINGTOIMMIGRANTS HISPANIC/LATINOIMMIGRANTACTIVITYINTHECOMMUNITY POTENTIALIMPACTOFLAWENFORCEMENT 8 9 18 21 25 28 DISCUSSION APPENDIXA:SURVEYINSTRUMENT APPENDIXB:COMPLETESURVEYRESULTS 29 36 40
INTRODUCTION Thisreportrepresentsthe2012SouthCarolinaLawEnforcementCensus.Thecensusis anannualsurveyconductedbythedepartmentofcriminologyandcriminaljusticeatthe UniversityofSouthCarolina.Thesurveyalternatesonayeartoyearbasisbetweenageneral censusofsouthcarolinalawenforcementagencycharacteristicsandsurveysonspecialissues confrontingagenciesinthestate.previousspecialissuesurveyshaveexploredvarioustopics includingpatternsofgangactivityinsouthcarolina,standardsoflawenforcementtraining,and locallawenforcementuseofthesouthcarolinaintelligenceandinformationcenter(sciic). Thisyear ssurveyfocusesonstateandlocallawenforcementperspectivesonimmigration enforcementissuesthatunderliesouthcarolinasenatebill20,whichcontainsprovisions relatedtoenforcementofimmigrationlawsbystateandlocallawenforcement. Ahandfulofstateshavepassedlegislation oraregivingconsiderationtolegislation thatauthorizeslocallawenforcementtoplayamoreactiveroleinimmigrationenforcement efforts.althoughsuchlegislationwilllikelyincreasetheworkloadoflocallawenforcement agencies,littleempiricalconsiderationhasbeengiventohowlocallawenforcementleaders viewsuchlegislationanditsimpactontheiragencies.whiletheissueofillegalorunauthorized immigrantsintheunitedstatescouldinvolveindividualsfromdiversecountriesoforigin,the presentstudyfocusesonhispanic/latinoimmigrants.thisfocusisinresponsetotheconcerns expressedinotherstatesandfromcommentsoflocallawenforcementexecutiveswhoplayed anadvisoryroleinthedevelopmentofthisstudy.theseexecutivessuggestedthatinsouth Carolinathecurrentissueofstateandlocallawenforcementinvolvementinimmigration enforcementlargelycentersonhispanic/latinoimmigrants. 1
Thefollowingreportbeginswithabriefbackgroundpertainingtothelawenforcement roleinimmigrationintheunitedstates.next,theresearchmethodswillbediscussed, followedbyapresentationofthefindings.thefindingsaresubdividedintothefollowing categories:agencyinformation,generalissuesandperspectivesregardinghispanic/latino immigration,interactionwiththeimmigrationandcustomsenforcement(ice)branchofthe FederalDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,departmentpoliciesrelatingtoimmigrantsinthe respondents communities,hispanic/latinoimmigrantcriminalactivityandvictimizationinthe community,andlastly,thepotentialimpactsofanimmigrationlawinsouthcarolina.appendix Aprovidesthesurveyinstrumentusedinthecurrentstudyinitsentirety.AppendixBprovides dataresponsesforeachquestiononthesurveyasthebodyofthereportpresentsselected findings. 2
BACKGROUND Immigrationenforcementhaslongbeenconsideredaresponsibilityofthefederal government.beginningwiththechineseexclusionactof1882,thefederalgovernmenthas repeatedlyattemptedtocurtailtheflowofimmigrationintotheunitedstates(dinnerstein& Reimers,1999).By1904,itwasclearthattheChineseExclusionActwasnotstoppingtheflow ofchineseworkersintothecountry,andagroupofmountedinspectorswasestablishedto patrolthemexicanborderandpreventthesmugglingoftheselaborersthroughmexico. Twentyyearslater,theU.S.BorderPatrolwasborn(Espenshade,1995). Inrecentyears,thefederalgovernmenthasbeguntransferringthepowertopolice immigrationtostateandlocallawenforcementagencies beginningwiththeillegal ImmigrationReformandImmigrantResponsibilityAct(IIRIRA)passedbyCongressin1996. AccordingtoVarsanyi,Lewis,Provine,andDecker(2011): Undersection287(g)oftheImmigrationandNationalityAct(INA),state, county,andcitylawenforcementagencieshavetheopportunitytosigna memorandum of understanding (MOU), which allows them to partner with the federal government to enforce civil violations of federal immigration law, or in other words, to arrest unauthorized immigrants for beingillegal (p.139). ThoughtheIIRIRAdoesnotrequirestateand/orlocallawenforcementauthoritiestoenforce federalimmigrationlaw,afewstateshavetakenthisnextstep.arizona s SupportourLaw EnforcementandSafeNeighborhoodsAct (morecommonlyknownassenatebill1070)isbut oneexample.theunitedstatessupremecourtrecentlyupheldthemostcontroversialportion ofthelegislation,whichrequirespoliceofficerstoverifythecitizenshipofanypersontheystop whentheyhavereasonablesuspicionthatthepersonisanunauthorizedimmigrant(arizonav. UnitedStates,2012). 3
TheBeasonHammonAlabamaTaxpayerandCitizenProtectionActbuildsonArizona s lawbutgoesastepfurtherbyrequiringschooldistrictstoverifythecitizenshipofbothits studentsandtheirparents.southcarolina sillegalimmigrationandreformact,ifupheldby thecourts,wouldalsorequirestateandlocalpolicetoplayamoreproactiverolein immigrationenforcement.otherstates,includinggeorgia,indiana,andutahareconsidering theenactmentofsimilarlegislation(johnson,2011). Despitetherecentpassageoflegislationthatwouldrequirelocallawenforcementto becomeamoreactiveparticipantinenforcingimmigrationslaws,therehasbeenlittleresearch examiningtheperspectiveofthelocallawenforcementcommunityonthisissue.theexception tothislimitationisarecentnationalsurveyoflawenforcementleadersthatwasfundedbythe NationalScienceFoundation(NSF)(Lewisetal.,2012;Varsanyietal.,2012).Overall,the findingsfromthissurveyrevealedvariationacrossagenciesregardingthesupporttheircity officialshavefortheenforcementofimmigrationlawbylocallawenforcement,aswellas variationintheimmigrationverificationpracticesofagencies.thepresentstudybuildsonthis surveybyexploringtheperspectivesoflawenforcementofficialsinsouthcarolina,wherethe statelegislaturerecentlypassedimmigrationenforcementlegislationthatiscurrentlyunder courtreview.asopposedtothensfsupportednationalsurveyoflawenforcementexecutives whomayormaynotexistinastatewithimmigrationlegislation,allsouthcarolinalaw enforcementofficialshavetowrestlewiththepracticalrealityofengaginginsuchenforcement effortsinthenearfuture.asaresult,southcarolinalawenforcementofficialsprovideanideal populationforprovidinginsightonthispressingissue. 4
METHODS InNovember2011,researchersfromtheUniversityofSouthCarolinaconductedafocus groupwithfivelawenforcementexecutivesfromthestate.duringthemeeting,theexecutives wereaskedwhatissuestheywouldliketoseeexaminedintheupcomingyearaspartofthe SouthCarolinaLawEnforcementCensus.Theexecutivesimmediatelyexpressedconcernabout SouthCarolina spendingimmigrationlegislation,whichwouldrequirelawenforcementtoplay amoreproactiveroleinimmigrationenforcementefforts.theexecutivessharedmany apprehensionsaboutthelegislation particularlyregardingpotentialunintended consequencessuchasbudgetsbeingdepletedandmanpowershortages.moreover,they worriedthattheirofficerswouldnotreceiveadequatetrainingpriortothelegislation s enactment,andthattheymightfaceincreasedallegationsofracialprofilinguponenforcingthe newlaw. Attheconclusionofthefocusgroup,itwasagreedthattheresearcherswouldconduct astatewidesurveyofsouthcarolinastateandlocallawenforcementexecutivestocapture theirviewsonthependinglegislation.forthemostpart,questionsweremodeledonthose usedinasurveycreatedbylewisetal.(2012).someadditionalquestionswereincludedbased onconversationsfromthefocusgroup.theresultingsurveywasdividedintothefollowing sevensections:(1)agencyinformation,(2)generalissuesandperspectivesregarding Hispanic/LatinoImmigration,(3)InteractionwiththeImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement (ICE)BranchoftheFederalDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,(4)DepartmentPoliciesRelating toimmigrantsinyourcommunity,(5)hispanic/latinoimmigrantcriminalactivityand VictimizationintheCommunity,(6)PotentialImpactsofNewSouthCarolinaImmigrationLaw, 5
and(7)perceptionsofthenumberoflegalandunauthorizedimmigrantsinyourcommunity. Forthebenefitoftherespondents,severalFrequentlyAskedQuestionsaboutthenatureofthe studywereprovidedonthelastpage. ThepresentstudyisintendedtobeacompletecensusofSouthCarolinalaw enforcementagencies,withtheexceptionofuniversitypolicedepartmentsandotherspecial enforcementagencies.aprintedcopyofthesurvey,alongwithacoverletterexplainingthe purposeofthesurveyandasupportletterfromarecognizedlawenforcementexecutivewithin thestatewasmailedtoatotalof228agenciesonjune1,2012.areminderletterwasmailed toallagenciestwoweekslater,andanadditionalsurveypacketwasmailedtoanynon respondersattheendofjune.finally,athirdsurveypacketwasmailedtotheremainingnon respondersinmidjuly. Atotalof145agenciesreturnedcompletedsurveys,resultingina63.6%responserate. Table1displaystheresponseratedistributionforthedifferenttypesofagenciesincludedin thestudy.themajorityofrespondingagenciesweremunicipalorcountypolicedepartments (74.5%),whileanother22.8%identifiedthemselvesasafullservicesheriff soffice(i.e.,they engageinregularpatrol). Table1.Numberandpercentofrespondingagenciesbytype AgencyType N MunicipalorCounty 108 74.5 Sheriff soffice FullService 33 22.8 Sheriff soffice NoRegularPatrol 1 0.7 StateAgencies 3 2.1 Total 145 100.0 Respondentswereensuredtheiridentitiesaswellastheiranswerswouldremain confidential.assuch,noidentifyinginformationwascollected.whilethesurveywassentto 6
theexecutiveofficersofeachagency,werecognizethattheindividualcompletingthereport maybetheexecutiveorsomeonetheydesignatedtocompletethetask.ifthelatter,we presumeitissomeonewhocouldadequatelyspeaktotheexecutive sperspective.thesurvey includedaquestionthataskedtherespondenttoprovidehis/herrank.theseresultsare displayedintable2.allbuteightoftherespondentselectedtoprovidetheirrank.most respondentswereinfactthechieforsheriffoftheirdepartment(63%).thesecondmost commonlyreportedrankwascaptain(11%),followedbylieutenant(10%),andmajor(5%). Table2.Respondentrank Rank N Chief 78 56.9 Sheriff 8 5.8 Captain 15 11.0 Lieutenant 14 10.2 Major 7 5.1 Other 15 11.0 Total 137 100.0 7
FINDINGS AgencyInformation Respondentswereaskedtoindicatethenumberoffulltimeswornofficersintheir departmentaswellasthepercentageoftheirjurisdiction spopulationthatishispanic/latino. Table3providesabreakdownoftheagenciesintermsofmanpower.Thenumberoffulltime swornofficersrangedfrom0to765,withameanofapproximately61officersperagency. However,thesefiguresaresomewhatskewedduetoeightoutliersrangingfrom257to765 swornpersonnel.withouttheseoutliers,themaximumnumberofofficersis212andthemean fallstoapproximately39officersperagency.mostoftheagenciesincludedinthepresent studyaresmall aboutonethirdemployfewerthan10fulltimeswornofficers,andovertwo thirdsemployfewerthan50fulltimeswornofficers. Table3.Fulltimeswornofficersemployedbyagency* Numberofofficersemployed N 09 50 35.7 1024 16 11.4 2549 32 22.9 5074 13 9.3 7599 7 5.0 100249 14 10.0 250ormore 8 5.7 Total 140 100 *Fiverespondentsleftthisquestionblankandarethusexcludedfromthistable. Concerningimmigrantpopulations,respondentswerefirstaskedtoreportwhether thereareanyhispanic/latinoimmigrantsresidingintheirjurisdiction,regardlessoflegalstatus. Figure1indicatesthatover90%ofagenciesreporthavingsomeHispanic/Latinoresidents, howeverlargeorsmall. 8
Figure1.Regardlessoflegalstatus,arethereany Hispanics/Latinoresidentsinyourjurisdiction?(N=144) No 9% Yes 91% However,mostoftherespondingagenciesestimatethatHispanic/Latinoimmigrantscomprise nomorethan5%oftheirjurisdiction stotalpopulation.table4offersadditionalinformation regardinghispanic/latinopopulationpercentagesasindicatedbytherespondents.roughly 65%ofagenciesinthecurrentstudyestimatethatlessthan5%oftheirjurisdiction s populationishispanic/latino.conversely,only4outof143respondingagencies(or2.8%) estimatethathispanics/latinoscompriseabout20%ofresidentsintheirjurisdiction.no agencyreportedanestimategreaterthan20%. Table4.ageofjurisdiction spopulationthatishspanic/latino ageestimated N 1%orless 52 36.4 5% 41 28.7 10% 15 10.5 15% 5 3.5 20% 4 2.8 NotSure/NotApplicable 26 18.2 Total 143 100.0 GeneralIssuesandPerspectivesRegardingHispanic/LatinoImmigration 9
Thissectionofthesurveyaskedrespondentstocompareprevailingviewsintheir agencieswiththoseinthelocalcommunitytheyserve.theywereaskedtoindicatetheextent towhichtheyagreedordisagreed(usingafivepointlikertscale)withaseriesofnine statements.thefirststatementaskedrespondentshowmuchtheyagree(ordisagree)that unauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrationisacontroversialtopic:(a)intheirdepartment,and (b)intheirlocality.figure2depictsthedistributionofresponsesusingabargraphinwhichthe responsecategorieshavebeencollapsedintoagree(collapsingstronglyagreeandagree), disagree(collapsingstronglydisagreeanddisagree),orneutralinordertomoreeasilyidentify patterns.asthegraphillustrates,respondentstendtoagreethatunauthorizedimmigrationis acontroversialtopicintheirlocality,whileatthesametimetheydisagreethatitisa controversialtopicintheirdepartment.nearly40%ofrespondentsfeelthatunauthorized immigrationisacontroversialtopicintheirlocality,butonlyabout18%feelitisacontroversial topicintheirdepartment.thisisperhapsanindicationthatthepolicearelessconcernedwith unauthorizedimmigrationthantheybelievecitizensintheirjurisdictionare. Figure2."UnauthorizedHispanic/Latinoimmigration isacontroversialtopic" 49.6% 31.9% 26.6% 33.8% 39.6% 18.4% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality 10
Thenextquestionaskedrespondentstospecifytheextenttowhichtheyagreethat victimizationofunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrantsisconsideredaproblemintheir departmentandintheirlocality.figure3portraystheresponsedistributions,againusingthe samethreecategoriesandtheresultsshowthattherespondentsbelievetheviewsintheir localitycloselymirrortheviewsintheirdepartment.about46%ofrespondentsdisagreethat immigrantvictimizationisconsideredaproblemintheirdepartment;similarly,47%disagree thatimmigrantvictimizationisconsideredaproblemintheirlocality.saiddifferently,nearly halfoftherespondentsfeelthatimmigrantvictimizationisnotconsideredaproblemintheir departmentortheirlocality.still,nearly30%ofrespondentsdofeelthatimmigrant victimizationisconsideredaproblemintheirdepartments,whileonlyabout18%of respondentsbelieveitisconsideredaproblembytheirlocality.assuch,itappearsthat respondentsfeelthepoliceareslightlymoreinclinedthanthegeneralpublictobelievethat victimizationofunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrantsisaproblem. Figure3."Victimizationofunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrantsisconsideredaproblem" 46.1% 47.1% 24.1% 35.0% 29.8% 17.9% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality 11
Thenextquestionaskedrespondentswhattheirdepartmentandtheirlocalitybelieves regardinghoweasyitistodeterminewhoisinthecountryillegally.figure4suggeststhe respondentsbelievethegeneralpublicismuchmorelikelythanthepolicetoconsiderit relativelyeasytodeterminewhethersomeoneisanunauthorizedimmigrant.roughlyhalf (49.6%)oftherespondentsagreewiththenotionthatpeopleintheirlocalcommunitybelieve itisrelativelyeasytodeterminewhetherornotsomeoneisanillegalimmigrant.conversely, abouthalf(51.4%)oftherespondentsdisagreethattheirdepartmentwouldsharethesame view.thissuggestslawenforcementrespondentsfeelthatdeterminingaperson slegalstatus ismoredifficultthanthegeneralpublicrealizes. Figure4."Peoplebelieveitisrelativelyeasyto determinewhoisinthiscountrywithout authorization" 51.4% 49.6% 30.2% 26.8% 20.1% 21.8% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality Respondentswerethenaskedtheextenttowhichtheyagreethatgainingthetrustof unauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrantsisconsideredapriorityintheirdepartmentversusin 12
theirlocality.theresponsedistributionsarepresentedinfigure5.accordingtothe respondents,gainingthetrustofhispanic/latinoimmigrantsappearstobemoreofaconcern tothepolicethanthegeneralpublic;nearlyhalf(46.9%)oftherespondentsagreegainingtrust isapriorityintheirdepartment,whileslightlylessthanaquarter(22.9%)oftherespondents agreegainingtrustisaprioritybyresidentsintheirlocality. Figure5."Gainingthetrustofunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrantsisapriority" 49.3% 46.9% 37.8% 15.4% 27.9% 22.9% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality Thesubsequentfivequestionsaskedrespondentstheextenttowhichtheyagreedwith avarietyoftopics,includingthefollowing:theroleofthefederalgovernmentinimmigration enforcement,whetherimmigrationenforcementactsasadrainonlawenforcementresources, andwhetherillegalhispanic/latinoimmigrantscontributetotheircommunity sgang,drug, and/orviolentcrimeproblem.figures6,7,8and9belowdemonstratethattherespondents generallybelievetheirdepartmentsandlocalitiessharesimilaropinionsonmanyoftheissues. 13
Ineachofthegraphs,thepercentagesforagreement/disagreementonbehalfofthe respondents departmentsandlocalitiesdifferby5%orless. Figure6."Hispanic/Latinoimmigrationenforcementis consideredtheresponsibilityofthefederalgovernment" 41.3% 39.3% 25.9% 32.9% 30.7% 30.0% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality Figure7."IssuessurroundingunauthorizedHispanic/Latino immigrationareconsideredadrainonlawenforcement resources" 28.0% 22.9% 32.9% 41.4% 39.2% 35.7% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality 14
Figure8."Peoplebelieveunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrantscontributetothegang problem" 35.7% 32.1% 32.2% 33.6% 32.2% 34.3% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality Figure9."PeoplebelieveunauthorizedHispanic/Latino immigrantscontributetothedrugproblem" 47.6% 47.1% 23.1% 20.0% 29.4% 32.9% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality However,onthetopicofunauthorizedHispanic/Latinoimmigrationandviolentcrime, thereappearstobeaslightvariationinopinion.figure10suggeststhatrespondentsfeelthe generalpublicismorelikelythanthepolicetobelievethathispanic/latinoimmigrantsincrease violentcrime.nearly35%ofrespondentsagreethattheirlocalitybelievesunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrantsaddtotheviolentcrimeproblem,whilejustover25%of respondentsagreethattheirdepartmentholdsthesameopinion.conversely,nearly35%of 15
respondentsdisagreethattheirdepartmentbelievesunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrants increaseviolentcrime,whileroughly25%believetheirlocalitywoulddisagree. Figure10."PeoplebelieveunauthorizedHispanic/Latino immigrantscontributetotheviolentcrimeproblem" 32.9% 25.7% 40.6% 40.7% 26.6% 33.6% Disagree Neutral Agree InmyDepartment InmyLocality Thesubsequentquestionsgaugethepositionoftherespondents localgovernmentson unauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigration.figure11pertainstotherespondents perceptions oftheirlocalelectedofficials levelofsatisfactionwithcurrentlevelsofimmigration enforcement.morespecifically,wouldtheirelectedofficialspreferthepolicetobemoreor lessengagedinimmigrationenforcement,oraretheysatisfiedwiththecurrentlevelof enforcement?figure12concernsthelocalgovernment spolicyregardingunauthorized immigrantslivinginortravelingthroughitsjurisdiction.accordingtofigure11,themajorityof respondents(65%)feeltheircommunity selectedofficialsaresatisfiedwiththecurrentlevelof immigrationenforcement.about8%reporttheirelectedofficialswouldliketoseeincreased immigrationenforcement,whilejust1%(n=2)believetheirelectedofficialswouldliketosee lessimmigrationenforcement.aboutonequarterofrespondents(26%)admittheyarenot surehowtheirelectedofficialsfeelwithregardtoimmigrationenforcement. 16
Figure11.Whichofthefollowingreflectsthesituationinyour jurisdictionregardingunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigration? (N=144) NotSure 26% Electedofficials preferwebemore engagedin enforcement 8% Electedofficials satisfiedwith CURRENTlevelof enforcement 65% Electedofficials preferwebeless engagedin enforcement 1% TurningtoFigure12,mostrespondents(57%)reportthattheirlocalgovernmenthasno officialpolicyregardingunauthorizedimmigrantslivinginortravelingthroughtheirjurisdiction. Fourteenpercentindicatetheirlocalgovernmentexpectsthepolicedepartmenttotakea proactiveroleindeterringunauthorizedimmigrationinalloftheiractivities.another7%report theirlocalgovernmenthasdeveloped(orisintheprocessofdeveloping)policiesdesignedto encouragelocallawenforcementtoparticipatewithfederalauthoritiesincontrollingcertain kindsofcrimeassociatedwithunauthorizedimmigration.stillanother5%(n=7)indicatetheir localgovernmentsupportsapolicy(whetherwrittenorunwritten)of don taskdon ttell regardingunauthorizedimmigrantslivinginortravelingthroughtheirjurisdiction,unlessthey areinvolvedinseriouscrime.lastly,about17%ofrespondentswereunsureabouttheirlocal government spositionregardingunauthorizedimmigrantslivinginortravelingthroughtheir jurisdiction.itisworthnotingthat,althoughgiventheoption,noneoftherespondents 17
reportedthattheirgovernmenthadopenlydeclaredtheircommunitya sanctuary community forunauthorizedimmigrantsnotengagedincriminalactivities. Figure12.Whichofthefollowingdescribesthepositionofyourlocal govt.onunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigration?(n=144) NotSure 17% Supports"don't ask/don'ttell"policy 5% Developedpolicies thatencourage participationwith federalauthorities 7% Noofficialpolicy 57% Expectspolicetobe proactivein deterring unauthorized immigration 14% InteractionwithImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE) Thisportionofthesurveyaimedtogarnerabetterunderstandingoftherelationship(or lackthereof)betweeneachagencyandtheimmigrationandcustomsenforcement(ice)branch oftheunitedstatesdepartmentofhomelandsecurity.respondentswerefirstpresentedwith aseriesof yesorno questions,includingthefollowing:whethertheiragencyhas consultationswithicepersonneltodiscusscasesinvolvingunauthorizedimmigrants,whether theiragencycontactsicewhenholdingsuspectedunauthorizedimmigrantsforcriminal violations,andwhetherornottheiragencyhasa287gmemorandumofunderstanding(mou) withice.figure13belowportraystheresponsedistributionsforthesethreequestions. 18
Figure13.RelationshipwithImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE) Yes No NotSure WehaveremoteconsultationswithICEto discusscasesinvolvingunauthorized immigrants.(n=142) 8.5% 43.0% 48.6% WecontactICEwhenweareholdingsuspected unauthorizedimmigrantsforcriminal violations,buthavenoformalagreement. (N=143) 9.1% 31.5% 59.4% Wehavea287gMOUthatprovidesfederal trainingofsomelocalpolice&cooperationin INVESTIGATIONS&ARRESTSofunauthorized immigrantsforcivilimmigration VIOLATIONS.(N=143) 6.3% 19.6% 74.1% Responsestothefirstquestionaresplitnearlyevenly;43%ofrespondentsconfirmthat theiragencyhasremoteconsultations(whetherbyphone,electronic,orvideoconnection)with ICEpersonneltodiscussspecificcasesthatinvolveunauthorizedimmigrants,while48.6% reporttheiragencydoesnotconsultwithiceaboutsuchcases.responsestothesecond questionarenotasevenlysplit.nearly60%ofrespondentsindicatethattheiragencydoes contacticewhenholdingasuspectedunauthorizedimmigrantforacriminalviolationeven thoughnoformalagreementisinplace.still,31.5%ofagenciesdonotcontacticeinsucha situation.finally,respondentswereaskedwhetherornottheiragencyhasa287gmouwhich providesforfederaltrainingofsomelocalpoliceandcooperationininvestigationsandarrests 19
ofunauthorizedimmigrantsforcivilimmigrationviolations.thevastmajorityofrespondents (nearly75%)saytheiragencyhasnosuchmou.only9ofthe143respondentswhoanswered thequestion(orabout6%)saytheiragencydoesinfacthavea287gmou.however,nearly onefifth(19.6%)ofrespondentsareunsureaboutthestatusofanmouintheiragency. Respondentswerethenaskedaboutthedirectionoftheirdepartment scommunication withiceregardingimmigrationenforcement.morespecifically,theywereaskedifinformation flowsmostlyfromtheirdepartmenttoice,ifinformationflowsmostlyfromicetotheir department,orifinformationflowsaboutequallybothways.alternatively,respondentscould reportthattheirdepartmenthaslittleornocommunicationwithice.figure14depictstheir responses.twentypercentofagenciesfeelthatinformationflowsequallybothways.another 14%believethatinformationmostlyflowsfromtheirdepartmenttoICE,whileonly4%report thatinformationmostlyflowsfromicetotheirdepartment.inall,about38%ofagencies reporthavingsomelevelofcommunicationwithiceregardingimmigrationenforcement. Importantly,nearly60%reporthavinglittleornocommunicationwithICE. 20
Figure14.Statementthatbestdescribesthedirectionofour department'scurrentcommunicationwithiceregardingimmigration enforcement(n=145) NotSure 3% Infoflowsmostly fromour departmenttoice 14% Infoflowsmostly fromicetoour department 4% Wehavelittleorno communication withice 59% InfoflowsEQUALLY bothways 20% DepartmentPoliciesandPracticesRelatingtoImmigrants Inthissectionofthesurvey,respondentswerefirstaskedseveralquestionspertaining towhathappenswhenofficersencounterindividualswhomtheysuspectmaybeunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrants.Ineachofninescenarios,respondentswereinstructedtoreport whetherofficersintheirdepartmenttypically:(1)checkimmigrationstatus,(2)reporttoice, (3)doboth,or(4)doneither. 1 Theninescenariosrangedinseverityfromminoroffensessuch asbeingstoppedforatrafficviolationtoseriousoffensessuchasbeingarrestedforaviolent crime.figure15displaysthepercentageofagenciesthattypicallycheckimmigrationstatus, reporttoice,orbothwhenencounteringasuspectedunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrant ineachscenario. 1 Assumingthesuspectedunauthorizedimmigranthasnopriorcriminalrecord. 21
Accordingtorespondents,thepolicearemostlikelytocheckimmigrationstatusand/or contacticewhentheyarrestanindividualwhomtheybelieveisanunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrantinvolvedinaviolentcrime(79%),followedbyinvolvementingang activity(76%),andillegaldrugs(73%).nonviolentcrimes(51%)anddomesticviolence(59%) arelesslikelytotriggeranimmigrationstatuscheckand/orcontactwithice,butstillhappen moreoftenthannot,accordingtotherespondents.similarly,56%and58%ofrespondents reportthatofficersintheirdepartmentcheckimmigrationstatus,contactice,ordobothwhen asuspectedunauthorizedimmigrantisinterviewedasapossiblevictimofhumantraffickingor detainedforaparoleviolation,respectively.suchchecksaremuchlesslikelytooccurwhena suspectedunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrantisstoppedforatrafficviolation(23%)or interviewedasacrimewitness,victim,orcomplainant(24%). 22
Figure15.ageofagenciesthatcheckimmigrationstatus, contactice,orbothwhenasuspectedillegalimmigrantwithnoprior criminalrecordis: Interviewedasapossiblevictimofhuman Detainedforaparoleviolation 56% 58% Interviewedasacrimevictim,complainant,or 24% Arrestedforgangactivity Arrestedforillegaldrugs Arrestedfordomesticviolence Arrestedforanonviolentcrime Arrestedforaviolentcrime 76% 73% 59% 51% 79% Stoppedforatrafficviolation 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Respondentswerethenaskediftheirdepartmenthasapolicyregardinginteraction withimmigrants.asanexample,respondentswereinformedthatthismightincludeaprotocol concerningwhentoinquireaboutimmigrationstatusandwhattoreport.figure16displays theresponsedistribution.fouroutofeveryfiverespondents(81%)indicatethattheir departmenthasnopolicyatall.only10%ofagencieshaveaformal,writtenpolicyregarding interactionwithimmigrants.another6%claimtheiragencyhasapolicy,butnotinwritten form. 23
Yes,wehavea writtenpolicy 10% Figure16.Doesyourdepartmenthaveapolicyregarding interactionswithimmigrants? Yes,butourpolicy isnotinwritten form 6% NotSure 3% No 81% Thenextsetofquestionsaskedrespondentsabouttrainingrelatedtoincidentsorcalls involvingunauthorizedimmigrants.themajorityofrespondentsindicatetheiragencyneither providestrainingfortheirofficersnorreceivestrainingfromthesouthcarolinadepartmentof PublicSafetyorICE(about75%ineachcase),asshowninFigure17.Agenciesappearmore likelytoprovideinhousetrainingfortheirofficersthantoreceivetrainingfromthesc DepartmentofPublicSafetyorICE.About2223%ofrespondentsreportthattheiragencies providesometypeofimmigrationtrainingfortheirofficers whileslightlylessreportreceiving trainingfromice(18.1%),andevenlessreportreceivingtrainingfromthescdepartmentof PublicSafety(11.8%). 24
Figure17.ImmigrationRelatedTraining Yes No NotSure HasyouragencyRECEIVEDtrainingonunauthorized immigrationfromthescdeptartmentofpublicsafety? (N=144) 11.8% 11.8% 76.4% HasyouragencyRECEIVEDtrainingonunauthorized immigrationfromice?(n=144) 6.3% 18.1% 75.7% HasyouragencyPROVIDEDtrainingonunauthorized immigrationtoitsswornpersonnel?(n=144) 4.9% 22.9% 72.2% HasyouragencyPROVIDEDtrainingforswornofficers specificallyrelatedtocallsinvolvingunauthorized immigrants?(n=143) 4.2% 22.4% 73.4% Hispanic/LatinoImmigrantActivityintheCommunity Thisportionofthesurveycomparedboththecriminalpropensityandtheprevalenceof victimizationamongunauthorizedhispanic/latinoimmigrantstootherresidents.the respondentswerefirstaskedifunauthorizedimmigrantsweremore,equally,orlesslikelytobe victimsofaseriesofsixcrimes:theft/robbery,harassment/discrimination,domesticviolence, otherformsofviolenceandassaults,drugrelatedcrime,andgangrelatedcrime.then, respondentswerepresentedwiththesamesixcrimesandaskedifunauthorizedimmigrants weremore,equally,orlesslikelytocommiteachoffense.tables5and6belowrevealseveral patterns.inbothtables,themajorityofrespondentsfallintothe equally column(fromalow 25
of57.3%toahighof76.9%).thissuggeststhepolicegenerallyfeelunauthorizedimmigrants arenomoreorlesslikelythanotherresidentstooffendorbevictimizedbycrime. However,onekeydistinctionbetweenthetwotablesisevident.Table5revealsthata greaterpercentageofrespondentsfeelthatunauthorizedimmigrantsaremorelikely(as opposedtolesslikely)thanotherresidentstobevictimizedbyeachoffense.forexample, 39.9%ofrespondentsfeelthatunauthorizedimmigrantsaremorelikelythanotherresidentsto bethevictimofatheftorrobbery.incomparison,only3.8%ofrespondentsfeeltheyareless likelythanotherresidentstobethevictimofatheftorrobbery.thesamepatternholdstrue foreachofthesixoffenses,albeittoalesserextentforgangrelatedcrime(16.9%for more versus10%for less ). Table5.Comparedtootherresidents,howvulnerableareunauthorized immigrantstoeachofthefollowingcrimes?* More Equally Less Theft/Robbery 39.9% 57.3% 3.8% Harassment/Discrimination 29.8% 67.2% 3.1% Domesticviolence 23.3% 69.9% 6.8% Otherformsofviolence& assaults 22.9% 70.2% 6.9% Drugrelatedcrime 22.0% 70.5% 7.6% Gangrelatedcrime 16.9% 73.1% 10.0% *Rowsmaynotadduptoexactly100%duetorounding. Ontheotherhand,Table6illustratesthatagreaterpercentageofrespondentsfeelthat unauthorizedimmigrantsarelesslikely(asopposedtomorelikely)thanotherresidentsto commiteachofthesixcrimes.lookingagainatthefirstrow(theft/robbery),28.2%of respondentsfeelthatunauthorizedimmigrantsarelesslikelythanotherresidentstocommita theftorrobbery.conversely,just6.1%ofrespondentsindicatedthatunauthorizedimmigrants 26
weremorelikelythanotherresidentstocommitatheftorrobbery.thispatternholdstruefor fiveofthesixoffenses,withtheonlyexceptionbeingdomesticviolence.forthisoffense, responsesaresplitmoreevenly:about15%ofrespondentssayimmigrantsaremorelikelyto engageindomesticviolencewhile13%saytheyarelesslikelytoengageindomesticviolence. Onceagain,themajority(nearly72%)feelunauthorizedimmigrantsarenomoreorlesslikely thanotherresidentstoengageindomesticviolence.takenasawhole,tables5and6highlight thefollowingtheme:therespondentsviewunauthorizedimmigrantsasequally,ifnotmore likely,tobevictimizedbycrime,whileatthesametimeequally,ifnotlesslikely,toengagein crime. Table6.Comparedtootherresidents,howlikelyareimmigrantstocommiteachofthefollowing crimes?* More Equally Less Theft/Robbery 6.1% 65.6% 28.2% Harassment/Discrimination 2.3% 61.5% 36.2% Domesticviolence 15.3% 71.8% 13.0% Otherformsofviolence&assaults 6.9% 76.9% 16.2% Drugrelatedcrime 9.2% 73.3% 17.6% Gangrelatedcrime 10.8% 67.7% 21.5% *Rowsmaynotadduptoexactly100%duetorounding. InordertogarnerabetterunderstandingofpoliceLatino/Hispaniccommunity relations,respondentswereaskedhowlikelyorunlikelyitwouldbeforhispanic/latino immigrantsintheircommunitytocontactlawenforcementiftheywerevictimsorwitnessesto acrime(ascomparedtothegeneralpopulation).figure18displaystheresponsedistributions. Themajorityofrespondents(over80%)believeHispanic/Latinoimmigrantsarelesslikelythan thegeneralpopulationtocontactlawenforcementwhentheyarevictimsoforwitnessestoa 27
crime.aboutonequarterofrespondents(27%)sayimmigrantsaremuchlesslikelytocontact police,whileoveronehalfofrespondents(56%)saytheyaresomewhatlesslikelytocontact police.another13%ofrespondentsfeelimmigrantsareequallyaslikelyasthegeneral populationtocontactpolice.lastly,only4%believeimmigrantsaremorelikelytocontact police. Figure18.Howlikelyareunauthorizedimmigrantsinyour communitytocontactlawenforcementwhentheyarevictimsor witnesses,comparedtothegeneralpopulation? Justaslikely(the same) 13% Somewhatmore likely 2% Muchmorelikely 2% Muchlesslikely 27% Somewhatless likely 56% PotentialImpactofLawEnforcement Neartheendofthesurvey,respondentswereaskedtoindicatetheirviewsregarding thepotentialimpactsofthenewsouthcarolinaimmigrationlawonstateandlocallaw enforcement.theywerepresentedwithfivepotentialdrawbacksofsuchalaw,andaskedto indicatetheirconcernonascaleof1(notatallconcerned)to5(extremelyconcerned).thus, higherscoresforeachitemindicatemoreconcernandlowerscoresindicatelessconcern.the 28
meanscoresarepresentedintable7below.themeanresponseforeachitemfallsbetween 2.92and3.42,indicatingmoderatelevelsofconcernovereachofthesefivepotential unintendedconsequencesofanewimmigrationlaw.increasedworkloadofofficers(m=3.36) andincreasedcostsforthehousing/detentionofinmates(m=3.42)appeartobeslightlymore ofaconcernthantheotherthreeitems.respondentsappearleastconcerned(relativetothe otheritems)aboutincreasedstopping/detainingofhispanics/latinos;butthemeanof2.92for thisitemindicatesmoderateconcernnevertheless. Table7.PotentialImpactsofnewSouthCarolinaImmigrationLaw* Mean N** Increasedworkloadofofficersinfield 3.36 133 Increaseincostsforhousing/detentionofinmates 3.42 121 Increaseinthestopping&detainingofHispanics/Latinos 2.92 133 Increaseinlawsuitsrelatedtoracial/ethnicprofiling 3.03 131 WorsepoliceHispanic/Latinocommunityrelations 3.23 130 *Likertscalefrom1(notconcerned)to5(extremelyconcerned). **Respondentswhoanswered NotApplicable areexcludedfromthistable. DISCUSSION TheinterestinregulatingimmigrationisalongstandingissueintheUnitedStates.The mostrecentdirectionforsucheffortshasbeenthepassageoflegislationatthestatelevelto eithersupportorrequirestateandlocallawenforcementtoengageineffortstodetect individualsinviolationoffederalimmigrationlaw.theselegislativeeffortshavebeenasource ofcontroversy,leadingtodebatesabouttheproperroleoflocallawenforcementinrelationto membersofimmigrantcommunities(whetheroflegalorillegalstatus)(weissman,headen, andparker,2009).amongthevariousconcernsiswhethertheseimmigrationenforcement effortsdamagerelationswithethnicandracialminorities,particularlyindividualsoflegalor 29
illegalimmigrantstatus,andtherebycausetheseindividualstorefrainfromengagingwiththeir locallawenforcement,whichcouldhaveanegativeimpactonpublicsafety. Whathaslargelybeenmissingfromthisdebateisinsightfromstateandlocallaw enforcementofficials,whoareorwillberesponsibleforcarryingouttheselegislative mandates.whiletherehavebeenwellknownlawenforcementadvocatesforstatelegislation onimmigrationenforcement,suchassheriffjoearpaioofmaricopacounty,arizona,therehas beenlittleefforttoobtaintheperspectiveofthelawenforcementcommunityasawhole. Importantissuesincludewhetherlawenforcementofficialsbelieveillegalimmigrationand criminalactivityrelatedtosuchindividualsisaproblematicissueintheircommunity,whether officersordeputiesintheirrespectiveagencieshavethetrainingtoengageinthese enforcementefforts,andtheperceivedimpactthisnewstatelegislationwillhaveontheir agencyandtheimmigrantcommunitiesintheirjurisdiction.thepresentstudywasanattempt tofillthisknowledgegapthroughasurveyoflawenforcementexecutivesinsouthcarolina, whichrecentlypassedimmigrationenforcementlegislation.asnotedabove,atthesuggestion oflawenforcementofficials,thefocusofthesurveywasprimarilyonhispanic/latino immigrants.areviewofthesurveyresultsrevealsfourgeneralthemesfromtherespondents answers. First,theresponsesrevealedaperceptionamongsomelawenforcementofficialsthat theydonothavethesameopiniononimmigrationissuesasmembersoftheircommunity. Notably,lawenforcementofficerswerelesslikelytoviewunauthorizedHispanic/Latino immigrationasacontroversialtopicthantheyperceivedwasthecaseamongtheircommunity members.inaddition,comparedtotheirperceptionsofcommunitymemberopinions,law 30
enforcementofficialswerelesslikelytoagreethatitiseasytodeterminewhoisauthorizedto beinthiscountry.thissuggestssomelawenforcementofficialsfeelthatmembersoftheir communitydonotappreciatethedifficultyofenforcingimmigrationlaws.lastly,law enforcementofficialsreportedplacinggreaterimportanceongainingthetrustofunauthorized Hispanic/Latinoimmigrantsasaroleoftheiragencythantheyperceivedwasthecasewith communitymembers. Second,fewlawenforcementofficialsreportedthattheirpersonnelhadthetraining andsupporttoengageinimmigrantenforcementefforts.onlysixpercentofagenciesreported theyhada287gmouagreementtoprovidefederaltrainingandcooperationininvestigations andarrestsofunauthorizedimmigrants.moreover,alimitednumberofagencies,25%orless, reportedtheirofficersordeputieshadreceivedtrainingfromthesouthcarolinalaw EnforcementDivisionorICEonimmigrationenforcement,orthattheiragencyhadprovided suchtraining.ifthecurrentstatelawisimplementedinthenearfutureinlightoftherecent supremecourtdecisioninarizonav.unitesstates(2012)andu.s.districtcourtrulinginsouth CarolinaSB20(Kittle,2012),thiswouldsuggesttherehasnotbeensufficienttrainingstatewide forlocallawenforcementagenciestostartengaginginenforcementefforts. Third,despiteconcernsaboutcriminalityamongimmigrantsbeingraisedasabasisfor statelevellegislation,particularlyamonghispanic/latinoimmigrants,themajorityof respondinglawenforcementofficialsdidnotmakethisconnection.themajorityofofficials perceivedhispanic/latinoimmigrantstobeequallyorlesslikelytoengageinthevarious identifiedcrimesthanotherresidents.theyalsoviewedtheseindividualstobeequallyormore likelytobethevictimsofthesamecrimesthanotherresidents.inaddition,themajorityofthe 31
lawenforcementofficials(83%)believehispanic/latinoimmigrantsarelesslikelytocontactlaw enforcementwhentheyarethevictimoforawitnesstoacrime.afewoftheofficialsthat advisedthecensusresearchteamexpressedconcernaboutthenewlegislationfurther dampeningthisreportingrateamongapopulationtheyviewedasvulnerabletocrime. Fourth,lawenforcementofficials,onaverage,expressedconcernaboutthepotential impactthenewsouthcarolinaimmigrationlawwouldhaveontheiragency.themostnotable concernswhereanincreasedworkloadonofficersanddeputiesinthefieldandincreasedcosts forhousing/detainingindividualsheldforimmigrationviolations.additionalconcernswerethe potentialincreaseinlawsuitsforracial/ethnicprofilingandadeclineinpolicehispanic/latino communityrelations. Overall,thesefindingssuggesttheimplementationofstateimmigrationlawsisa complexissue.inthecaseofsouthcarolina,thesurveyedstateandlocallawenforcement officials,whohavetheprimaryresponsibilityforimplementationefforts,suggestthereare potentialimpactsinthewayofincreasedworkloadsandcoststotheiragencyfromthis legislation.theseworkloadandcostissuesmaybedifficultformanyagenciestobeargiventhe impacttherecentfiscalcrisishadontheirmanpowerandoperatingbudgets.moreover,the respondingofficialssuggestthebasicpracticeofidentifyingwhoisauthorizedtobeinthe countryisnotassimpleasperceivedbythearchitectsofsuchstateimmigrationlaws,andthat theseeffortsmayhaveanegativeimpactontheirrelationshipwiththehispanic/latino community.itisbeyondthescopeofthepresentstudytorecommendwhetherornot immigrationenforcementlawsshouldbepassedandimplemented.however,giventhe potentialnegativeimpactsonlawenforcementandrelationsbetweenlawenforcementand 32
Hispanics/Latinos,werecommendthatlawenforcementofficialsshouldhaveasignificantrole indeliberationstopasssuchlegislationanditsvariouselements. 33
References Dinnerstein,L.&Reimers,D.M.(1999).EthnicAmericans:AHistoryofImmigration(4 th ed.). NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Espenshade,T.J.(1995).UnauthorizedimmigrationtotheUnitedStates.AnnualReviewof Sociology,21,195216. Johnson,K.R.(2011).SweethomeAlabama?Immigrationandcivilrightsinthe new south. StanfordLawReviewOnline,64,2228. Kittle,R.(2012).SCtoStartEnforcingPartofStateImmigrationLaw.CBSNewsaffiliate, Spartanburg,SouthCarolina.ReceivedDecember28,2012from: http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/nov/16/scstartenforcingpartstateimmigration lawar4987412/ Lewis,P.G.,Provine,D.M.,Varsanyi,M.W.,&Decker,S.H.(2012).Whydo(some)citypolice departmentsenforcefederalimmigrationlaw?political,demographic,and organizationalinfluencesonlocalchoices.journalofpublicadministrationresearchand Theory.(AdvanceAccess firstpublishedonoctober4,2012asdoi: 10.1093/jopart/mus045). Varsanyi,M.W.,Lewis,P.G.,Provine,D.M.,&Decker,S.(2012).Amultilayeredjurisdictional patchwork:immigrationfederalismintheunitedstates.law&policy,34(2),138158. Weissman,D.M.,Headen,R.C.&K.L.Parker.(2009).ThePoliciesandPoliticsofLocal ImmigrationEnforcementLaws.NorthCarolina:UniversityofNorthCarolina, Immigration&HumanRightsClinic. 34
LawsandCasesCited Arizona.SB1070,Ariz.Rev.Stat. 111051,asamendedbyHB2162. Arizonav.UnitedStates.2012.567U.S. BeasonHammonAlabamaTaxpayerandCitizenProtectionAct,H.B.65,2011Leg.,Reg.Sess., 2011Ala.Laws535. ChineseExclusionAct,22Stat.58(1882). IllegalImmigrationReformandImmigrantResponsibilityAct,Pub.L.No.104 208,110Stat. 3009(1996). ImmigrationandNationalityAct,8U.S.C. 1357(2007). 35
APPENDIXA:SURVEYINSTRUMENT 36
RETURN TO: Bob Kaminski Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice 1305 Greene Street University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 FAX: 803-777-9600 EMAIL: kaminskb@mailbox.sc.edu SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE & IMMIGRATION SURVEY University of South Carolina (USC) Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice Welcome to the Police & Immigration Survey. The purpose of this survey is to better understand current opinions and policing policies and practices related to persons in your community who may be unauthorized (undocumented or illegal) Hispanic/Latino immigrants. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. We appreciate your honest and candid responses and all information provided will be kept confidential. No individual or department will be linked to the responses provided. For frequently asked questions (FAQs) about this survey see Section H on page 8. INSTRUCTIONS Please print your written responses. Complete each page and do not leave any items blank. Mail the completed survey within two weeks of receiving it. Retain a copy of the completed survey for your records as project staff may call to clarify responses. If you have any questions regarding the survey, please call or email Bob Kaminski at (803) 777-1560, kaminskb@mailbox.sc.edu. SECTION A: Agency Information 1. Agency Name: 2. City: Zip Code: 3. Respondent Position: Rank: 4. County Code: 01. Abbeville 08. Berkley 15. Colleton 22. Georgetown 29. Lancaster 36. Newberry 43. Sumter 02. Aiken 09. Calhoun 16. Darlington 23. Greenville 30. Laurens 37. Oconee 44. Union 03. Allendale 10. Charleston 17. Dillon 24. Greenwood 31. Lee 38. Orangeburg 45. Williamsburg 04. Anderson 11. Cherokee 18. Dorchester 25. Hampton 32. Lexington 39. Pickens 46. York 05. Bamberg 12. Chester 19. Edgefield 26. Horry 33. McCormack 40. Richland 06. Barnwell 13. Chesterfield 20. Fairfield 27. Jasper 34. Marion 41. Saluda 07. Beaufort 14. Clarendon 21. Florence 28. Kershaw 35. Marlboro 42. Spartanburg 5. Which category below best describes your agency? Municipal or County Police Department Sheriff s Office full service Sheriff s Office jail operations, court security, etc. no regular patrol Department of Public Safety Special District Police Department (e.g. campus police, park police, etc.) State Highway Patrol Other (specify): 6. How many full-time sworn officers does your agency employ? 7. Does your agency operate a jail? Yes No Not Sure 8. Does your agency pay a housing fee to a local detention center for arrestees? Yes No Not Sure 9. If your agency pays a housing fee, what is the daily amount? Not sure Page 1 of 8
SECTION B: GENERAL ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES REGARDING HISPANIC/LATINO IMMIGRATION 10. Next, we would like you to compare prevailing views in your agency with those in the local community you serve. Please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements by circling a number from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree a. Unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigration is a controversial topic i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 b. Victimization of unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigrants is considered a problem i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 c. People believe that it is relatively easy to determine who is in this country without authorization i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 d. Gaining the trust of unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigrants is a priority i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 e. Hispanic/Latino immigration enforcement is considered the responsibility of the federal government i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 f. Issues surrounding unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigration are considered a drain on law-enforcement resources i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 g. Unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigrants contribute to the gang problem i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 h. Unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigrants contribute to the drug problem i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 i. Unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigrants contribute to the violent crime problem i. In my department 1 2 3 4 5 ii. In this locality 1 2 3 4 5 Page 2 of 8
11. Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the situation in your jurisdiction regarding unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigration? Place a check next to the single best answer. Most elected officials in this jurisdiction would prefer our department to be more engaged in immigration enforcement. Most elected officials in this jurisdiction would prefer our department to be less engaged in immigration enforcement. Most elected officials in this jurisdiction are satisfied with our department s current level of immigration enforcement. Not sure 12. Which of the following statements best describes the current position of the local government of your jurisdiction on unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigration? Choose the single best answer. Our local government has openly declared this a sanctuary community for unauthorized immigrants who are not engaged in criminal activities. Our local government supports a policy (whether written or unwritten) of don t ask-don t tell regarding unauthorized immigrants living in or traveling through our jurisdiction, unless they are involved in serious crime. Our local government has developed, or is developing, policies designed to encourage local law enforcement to participate with federal authorities in controlling certain kinds of crime associated with unauthorized immigration. Our local government expects the department to take a proactive role in deterring unauthorized immigration in all of our activities. Our local government has no official policy vis-à-vis unauthorized immigrants living in or traveling through our jurisdiction. Not sure. SECTION C: INTERACTION WITH THE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 13. For each of the statements below, please check Yes if the statement is true of your department s relationship with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch of the federal Department of Homeland Security, or check No if it is not true. a. We have a 287g Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provides for federal training of some local police and cooperation in investigations and arrests of unauthorized immigrants for civil immigration violations. Yes No Not Sure b. We have a MOU to help manage unauthorized immigrants who have been incarcerated. Yes No Not Sure [question 13 continues on next page] Page 3 of 8
c. We contact ICE when we are holding suspected unauthorized immigrants for criminal violations, but have no formal agreement. Yes No Not Sure d. ICE officers are embedded in one or more of our units. Yes No Not Sure e. We have remote consultations (by phone, electronic, or video connection) with ICE personnel to discuss specific cases involving unauthorized immigrants. Yes No Not Sure f. We do not participate or assist in ICE immigration-enforcement activities. Yes No Not Sure g. We considered, but ultimately decided against, any type of working relationship with ICE. Yes No Not Sure 14. In deciding whether or not to become involved with ICE in immigration enforcement, how important were the following considerations? Circle a number from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) for each item. If you are unsure, circle number 6. Not at all Extremely Not Important Neutral important Sure a. Too expensive/not enough funding or staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 b. No community support 1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Active community opposition 1 2 3 4 5 6 d. Would decrease public safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. No or small Hispanic/Latino population 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Place a check next to the one statement that best describes the direction of your department s current communication with ICE regarding immigration enforcement issues. Information mostly flows from our department to ICE. Information mostly flows from ICE to our department. Information flows about equally both ways. We have little or no communication with ICE. Not sure. Page 4 of 8
SECTION D: DEPARTMENT POLICIES RELATING TO IMMIGRANTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY 16. What typically happens when officers in your department encounter individuals who might be unauthorized Hispanic/Latino immigrants in each of the following situations, assuming they have no prior criminal record? Circle your answers. Check Immigration Report Not Status to ICE Both Neither Sure a. Stopped for a traffic violation 1 2 3 4 5 b. Arrested for a violent crime 1 2 3 4 5 c. Arrested for a nonviolent crime 1 2 3 4 5 d. Arrested for domestic violence 1 2 3 4 5 e. Arrested for illegal drugs 1 2 3 4 5 f. Arrested for gang activity 1 2 3 4 5 g. Interviewed as a crime victim, complainant, or witness 1 2 3 4 5 h. Detained for a parole violation 1 2 3 4 5 i. Interviewed as a possible victim of human trafficking 1 2 3 4 5 17. Does your department have a policy regarding interactions with immigrants? For example, do you have a protocol concerning when to inquire about immigration status and what to report? Yes, we have a written policy. Yes, but our policy is not in written form. No. Not sure. 18. Has your department offered training for sworn officers specifically related to incidents or calls involving unauthorized immigrants? Yes No Not sure 19. Does the ability to speak a second language count in favor of applicants and/or officers in your department? Yes No Not sure 20. Has your agency received training on unauthorized immigration from ICE? Yes No Not sure 21. Has your agency received training on unauthorized immigration from the SC Department of Public Safety? Yes No Not sure 22. Has your agency provided training on unauthorized immigration to its sworn personnel? Yes No Not sure Page 5 of 8