Spanberger takes more steps to control ICE arrests in Virginia

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger took additional steps to put limits on federal immigration enforcement, issuing an executive order that bars U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from carrying out arrests on state property unless they have a warrant.

Her executive order also prohibits ICE agents from using state property as a staging area for enforcement operations.

“Kids in elementary school are afraid to get on the bus, neighbors fear being targeted based on their appearance at the grocery store, and workers are not showing up at their jobs,” Spanberger said in a news release Wednesday announcing the order. “Public trust in state and local law enforcement is being undermined by the aggressive tactics used by federal immigration officials.”

The order and a bill signed by Spanberger that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks in most situations are part of efforts by state officials around the country to temper the Trump administration’s ramped-up immigration enforcement effort.

After being sworn into office in January, one of Spanberger’s first acts as governor was to issue an executive order rescinding an action by her predecessor, former governor Glenn Youngkin (R), that required state law enforcement agencies to enter into cooperation agreements with ICE. Such 287(g) agreements deputize state officials to either conduct federal immigration enforcement themselves or allow them to facilitate ICE arrests.

But Spanberger has been reluctant to go as far as other Democrats want to curb ICE arrests, which, as of March, had spiked by 60 percent in Virginia since President Donald Trump took office, according to federal data obtained through an ongoing public-records request by the Deportation Data Project at the University of California at Berkeley.

The Virginia governor vetoed legislation passed by the General Assembly that would have banned ICE agents from making an arrest for an administrative immigration violation inside certain protected areas, including a courthouse, school or voting site.

Spanberger said she proposed amendments to the legislation. The Democratically controlled General Assembly did not accept them.

“I appreciate the goal and intended purpose of this bill, but in practice, this legislation would not achieve the intended goals,” Spanberger said in a news release explaining the veto. “It would effectively require security guards and, in some cases, local law enforcement be placed in the untenable position of choosing between violating state law or federal law, rendering this proposal unworkable.”

The sponsors of the legislation called Spanberger’s veto “disappointing.”

“At a time when communities are demanding real solutions to a president who is trampling our fundamental rights, the governor’s executive order does little to protect those rights,” state Sen. Saddam Salim (D-Fairfax) said in a joint statement with Del. Katrina Callsen (D-Albemarle) on May 20.

Virginia Republicans praised the veto.

J. Garren Shipley, spokesman for the House Republican Caucus, said his party believes both bills overstepped the authority of the state, venturing into federal law enforcement policy, and were, therefore, unconstitutional.

“The U.S. Constitution makes it absolutely clear that when federal and state law are in conflict, federal law wins,” Shipley said in an interview. “States cannot interfere with how federal law enforcement officers conduct their duties.”

Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of Prosecutors Alliance Action, a nonprofit group seeking judicial reforms, said the actions taken by states in response to the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement actions are encouraging.

While states cannot completely block the federal government from enforcing immigration law, she said, they can force ICE agents to operate “in concordance with the way we police and regulate our state.”

Barring law enforcement officers from wearing masks – with exceptions for those who are assigned to special units or protecting themselves from disease – is an important accountability tool, she said.

“If your rights are violated, you have to be able to identify the individual officers that violated your rights,” Soto DeBerry said. “And when they are unidentified and wearing a mask … it is nearly impossible for the individual, for the witnesses, and even for the prosecutors like ourselves to show up after the fact and try to identify who is accountable for what actions.”

Masking creates, she said, a “back door” to absolute immunity for federal agents.

Soto DeBerry, who helped write a mask-banning bill in California that has served as a template for other states, said a “new era” is underway, with little legal precedent. The Trump administration and other groups have mounted challenges against such state laws in federal courts.

For much of the country’s history, Soto DeBerry said, the federal government protected U.S. citizens from state violations of their rights.

“That has been flipped on its head, and it is the states trying to protect their residents from federal efforts to restrict or eliminate their civil and constitutional rights,” Soto DeBerry said.

–Reporting by Juan Benn Jr., The Washington Post