The ‘chilling effect’ theory crumbles under scrutiny

Yesterday a major federal investigation into human trafficking and the distribution of controlled substances led to search warrants being executed in multiple locations in Minnesota. One of those locations was at Bloomington and East Lake St. in Minneapolis. 

Anti-immigration enforcement activists descended upon the scene and confronted agents and local law enforcement who were conducting the operation.

Both the city of Minneapolis and the Hennepin County Sheriff confirmed that the investigation was criminal in nature, not civil immigration enforcement.

Despite this, and despite having a full day to clarify the purpose of the operation, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty put out the following statement today:

While there are many points to take issue with in Moriarty’s statement, let’s focus on one that has become a staple for advocates opposing immigration enforcement — that when local law enforcement cooperates in anyway with ICE, that cooperation “will keep people from reporting crimes, from testifying as witnesses, and from seeking help.” 

This can be summed up as the “chilling effect” theory, and it’s used repeatedly by advocates opposed to immigration enforcement. Unfortunately, advocates have successfully used this theory to convince many local jurisdictions to adopt “sanctuary” policies prohibiting local law enforcement form sharing information or cooperating in anyway with DHS-ICE.

Fortunately, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) completed a thorough study of the theory in 2021 and concluded:

“There is no evidence in the NCVS data that crimes against immigrants are reported to police at lower rates than crimes against the native-born, indicating that the routine, even active, cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities that takes place in most jurisdictions does not suppress crime reporting by immigrants.”

The CIS concluded its report with this summary and policy recommendations, all of which discredit the “chilling effect” claim by Moriarty and anti-immigration enforcement advocates:

“Advocates for immigrants have long claimed that state and local law enforcement agencies should be prohibited from cooperating with federal immigration authorities because immigrant victims fear that contact with local police could result in their deportation, leading them to avoid reporting crimes. Data from the NCVS, the most authoritative national source of statistics on crime reporting, shows that crimes against immigrants (naturalized citizens and non-citizens) are reported to police at rates that match or exceed those of the U.S.-born. We find that this is consistently true for various types of crimes, and it is true for female victims, for Hispanic non-citizens (a group that includes many illegal aliens), for younger and presumably more recently arrived immigrants, across most geographic regions, and in both small and large communities. This is the case even though law enforcement in most jurisdictions routinely cooperates with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Our analysis also shows that in the overwhelming majority of victimizations, the immigrants themselves reported the crime to police. Of immigrant victims who did not report a crime, very few gave reasons stating or suggesting that they feared police or immigration enforcement.”

Policy Recommendations (CIP)

1. While it is encouraging that immigrants apparently report victimizations to police at the same or higher rates as the native-born, federal immigration authorities and state and local law enforcement agencies should continue to emphasize to each other and to the public that victims and witnesses of crime are not targets of immigration enforcement when they report them. Continuous reinforcement of this message will help ensure that immigrants and their friends and families continue to feel comfortable reporting crimes.
2. Local law enforcement agencies should not prohibit or discourage officers from cooperating with ICE based on the concern that immigrants are disproportionately less likely to report crimes.
3. Local law enforcement agencies should continue to encourage immigrants to report crimes. There are many successful models for this, some of which have been supported through grants from the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing programs. The NCVS data on reasons immigrants and natives may not report crimes suggest some appropriate initiatives, including:
   • Conduct outreach to immigrant communities to help immigrants understand why it is important to report crimes and how they can do so, including appearances in media for non-English speakers;
   • Cultivate a relationship with foreign consuls to enlist their help in explaining our laws and justice system to their citizens;
   • Use existing programs like faith community jail ministry programs to forge connections with leaders in immigrant communities;
   • Educate immigrants on how to prevent victimization;
   • Reduce language barriers by hiring staff who speak the languages of the community;
   • Consider hiring non-uniform personnel to staff sub-stations, take crime reports, and interview certain victims;
   • Offer anonymous tip lines for reporting crimes; and
   • Conduct outreach to help the entire community understand the law enforcement priorities of the agency.
4. Local law enforcement agencies should make judicious use of the visa programs available to help illegal immigrants who are victims of serious crimes and who are assisting in the prosecution of the offender. The availability of these visas can be helpful in gaining the cooperation of illegal immigrants in prosecuting crimes, but the U visa program in particular has become bogged down with rampant fraud and misuse to the point where cooperating victims of serious crime cannot access the benefits promptly. To improve the U visa program, Congress should narrow the eligibility criteria to cover victims of recent, serious crimes, among other reforms. In the meantime, state and local agencies should ensure certifying officers are properly applying the eligibility criteria to reduce abuse.
5. ICE should continue to provide services to victims of crime, including information for victims on the detention status and outcome of immigration proceedings of perpetrators. In particular, Congress should earmark funding for ICE’s victim services office.