A recent email from Jamiah K. Waterman, Executive Director of the City of Greensboro, has sparked concern among employees and residents regarding the city’s approach to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities. This email outlines the city’s policies for handling ICE visits to city facilities, emphasizing that city employees do not enforce federal immigration laws and directing them to refer ICE agents to the City Attorney’s Office. The directive also clarifies that administrative warrants do not permit entry into private areas, ensuring strict adherence to legal processes while maintaining a welcoming and inclusive environment for employees and residents.
Simultaneously, a new bill, Senate Bill 153, titled the “North Carolina Border Protection Act,” has been introduced by state Senate Leader Phil Berger and other legislators. This legislation mandates full cooperation between state law enforcement agencies and ICE, requiring immigration status checks on individuals in custody, strict oversight of state-funded public benefits, and measures to penalize municipalities that adopt sanctuary policies. The bill also prohibits universities from implementing sanctuary policies that would limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
This stark contrast between state and city policies sets the stage for a potential legal and procedural clash. The City of Greensboro’s policy, which restricts employee participation in immigration enforcement, may soon face direct challenges under the new state law requiring law enforcement agencies to collaborate with ICE actively. If enacted, the bill could override local policies, forcing compliance from municipal law enforcement agencies and raising questions about how local governments can maintain autonomy over their operations.
One primary concern is Greensboro’s potential legal vulnerability if it continues implementing policies that obstruct ICE operations. Senate Bill 153 stipulates that counties and municipalities implementing sanctuary policies will have their local immunity waived, allowing citizens to sue if illegal immigrants harm them. This could expose the city to lawsuits and financial liabilities if policies are interpreted as shielding undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement.
In addition to state law, Greensboro’s position on ICE cooperation could be seen as obstructing federal efforts to remove illegal criminals from the city. Federal immigration enforcement relies on local collaboration to detain and deport individuals with criminal backgrounds who pose risks to public safety. If Greensboro officials maintain policies that discourage information sharing or ICE access to city-controlled areas, they could be accused of actively interfering with a federal initiative aimed at removing dangerous individuals from the community.
Supporters of the bill argue that it is necessary to curb illegal immigration and protect public resources. However, critics highlight the economic impact, particularly on industries reliant on immigrant labor, such as construction, agriculture, and service jobs. Data from the Pew Research Center estimates that 325,000 undocumented immigrants lived in North Carolina in 2022, making up about one-third of the state’s immigrant population. Advocates warn that forcing stricter immigration enforcement could drive even legally residing immigrants out of the state, negatively affecting the economy.
The bill’s requirement that state law enforcement agencies determine the immigration status of individuals under their custody could create friction with the city’s position. If local police officers operating under state directives are mandated to cooperate with ICE, it could undermine the city’s efforts to ensure that its facilities remain spaces where all residents feel safe and welcome. However, by not cooperating, city officials may be seen as putting ideological priorities over public safety, potentially leading to public outcry.
From a governance perspective, this legislative push raises critical questions about the balance of power between state mandates and municipal discretion. Historically, cities have exercised local control over community policing strategies, but state laws such as Senate Bill 153 could significantly erode that autonomy. The broader implications extend beyond Greensboro, as municipalities across North Carolina may soon face similar conflicts between local priorities and state-enforced immigration policies.
As the legislative process unfolds, Greensboro officials may need to reassess their position in light of potential legal repercussions. The city’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion remains an essential part of its governance, but it must now navigate the challenges posed by state-mandated ICE cooperation. Moving forward, a legal battle or legislative negotiations could determine the fate of municipal policies on immigration enforcement, shaping the future of state-local relations in North Carolina.
Additional Reading Resources:
North Carolina Border Protection Act. Senate Bill 153
The Daily Record: Proposal: Enhancement of American border policy protection in North Carolina
Sen. Berger Files Bill to Extend Trump Admin’s Illegal Immigration Policies to State Law Enforcement Agencies
FOX 8 News: North Carolina Senate leader files bill requiring law enforcement to work with ICE
WRAL NEWS: NC bill requiring sheriffs to cooperate with ICE advances
WRAL NEWS: NC Senate leaders advance immigration crackdown bill
FOX 8 News: Immigration crackdown started over the weekend
Pew Research Center: What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.
