I am writing in response to the article about the ICE detainers in Canyon County . It’s obvious something needs to get worked out in terms of inmates who are bonding out but then even after posting a bond being kept in jail because of a detention request from federal authorities. That is a legal issue that needs to get fixed.
However, the rest of the article about Canyon County proactively communicating with federal authorities and proactively working with federal authorities versus the example of Ada County with a more reactive policy is confusing to me. What is wrong with that proactive policy Canyon County is using? Mentioning the legal issues of detaining those who have already bonded out and conflating it with Canyon County proactively communicating with federal authorities gives the idea there is something somehow morally or legally wrong with those communications when there obviously is nothing wrong with that at all.
There’s nothing wrong with Canyon County helping to enforce this nation’s immigration laws and I appreciate that local authorities try to work with federal authorities when it comes to enforcing national laws. Immigration is very valuable to this country and brings many different skill sets and wonderful people into this country, but this is also a nation of laws and I expect those laws to be enforced and they need to be enforced. Immigration and enforcement of national immigration laws are not separate and exclusionary.
Might I suggest an article discussing comprehensive immigration reform where we can have good strong enforceable laws while also allowing more people to safely and legally enter this country? That might go better rather than trying to create a negative narrative about a law-enforcement agency trying to enforce the law.
Allan Oney, Meridian