The Dallas Police Department (DPD) has reaffirmed its position regarding cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stating there are currently no plans to enter into a formal agreement under the 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement to assist in the arrest and deportation of immigrants.
Department spokesperson Corbin Rubinson confirmed via email that DPD has not engaged with ICE in this capacity. When further questioned about possible partnerships with ICE, Rubinson noted, ‘The Department is not currently pursuing a 287(g) agreement.’
This clarification comes in response to ongoing concerns raised by various community members and leaders, including North Texas U.S. Representative Julie Johnson. Johnson had sent a letter to DPD Chief Daniel Comeaux last week seeking clarity on the department’s immigration enforcement policies.
In her correspondence, Johnson outlined six key questions for the chief:
1. Has the department entered into any Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or informal agreements with ICE or other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies?
2. What criteria does DPD use to determine when and how they engage with ICE?
3. Does DPD collect or share information on immigration status during routine policing?
4. What processes does the department have in place to ensure transparency and accountability in federal partnerships?
5. Are DPD officers ever stationed to work alongside ICE officers?
6. Has the department received any funding or resources from ICE or DHS this year? If so, for what purposes?
Johnson set an August 21 deadline for Comeaux’s response, expressing that residents of Dallas deserve definite answers regarding their law enforcement policies.
She emphasized the importance of transparency within government, asserting that constituents need to understand what policies their local law enforcement agency is implementing—or choosing not to implement.
The 287(g) program is predominantly utilized by sheriff’s offices and various agencies operating jails as part of ICE’s ‘jail enforcement model.’ While DPD does not manage a jail, ICE also provides a ‘task force model,’ which offers law enforcement limited immigration authority under ICE oversight during routine policing duties.
Johnson’s inquiries were further fueled by dissatisfaction within the community regarding the department’s perceived lack of clarity on its immigration stance. The chief had previously faced backlash after suggesting in an interview that DPD would cooperate fully with ICE, though he later attempted to clarify that his statements pertained specifically to undocumented individuals with felony warrants.
In recent times, advocates and community groups have expressed their concerns about the potential impacts of immigration enforcement practices on local communities. The Community Police Oversight Board has also pressed for clarity from Chief Comeaux, requesting his presence at their next meeting to address these issues directly.
Rubinson declined to confirm whether the chief would attend the meeting, stating that Comeaux’s schedule for the following month had yet to be finalized. He noted, however, that the chief had participated in a board meeting in June, where direct community inquiries were not permitted.
In an interview with KERA News, Johnson shared her perspective on the pressing questions surrounding the department’s approach to immigration enforcement.
She stated, “I think transparency in government is important. Constituents deserve to know what policies their law enforcement and their local governments are enforcing or not enforcing.”
Johnson pointed out that residents had expressed specific concerns about whether DPD had signed a 287(g) agreement with the federal government. The failure to provide such straightforward answers has prompted her to seek further clarification.
Addressing community sentiment, Johnson remarked on the repercussions of current immigration policies and enforcement tactics, noting that many in the community felt the effects of a climate that prioritizes immigration enforcement over local policing responsibilities.
She further stated, “No one wants dangerous criminals roaming our streets. We need our local police to have the support of the community. Having strong community engagement helps in reporting crime and fosters trust between residents and law enforcement.”
As for her expectations for Comeaux’s response by August 21, Johnson indicated a willingness to explore other options if the chief failed to reply.
She remarked, “I would expect that the police chief would respond to a sitting member of Congress’ questions about whether or not they’re going to engage with federal ICE detention officers. If not, we may consider further steps, including a possible subpoena to compel his appearance in front of our committee.”
The dialogue around the DPD’s stance on immigration enforcement is unfolding amid broader discussions on policing and community relations, especially in the aftermath of past leadership efforts aimed at fostering trust within immigrant communities.
The former chief of DPD, Eddie Garcia, was noted for engaging with Latino and Hispanic communities to build trust. In light of current circumstances, Johnson conveyed concern over whether that trust remains intact.
She called for clarity from the police chief, arguing it is vital for the community to know the department’s policies and operations around immigration enforcement.
As conversations regarding immigration enforcement expand, Johnson also touched upon the contentious issue of redistricting in Texas, noting ongoing unrest related to Republican-drawn district maps that could alter political representation.
In her view, these redistricting efforts are designed to disenfranchise minority voters.
“Unfortunately, Republicans are more concerned about a tweet from Donald Trump than they are about preserving the rights of their voters,” Johnson stated. “The actions being taken by the current legislators are diluting urban and minority voting rights in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and we are seeing constituents rightly outraged by this politicization of their representation.”
Reflecting on the ongoing situation in Texas, Johnson showed support for Democratic efforts to combat the redistricting measures, noting the heightened sense of disenfranchisement felt across communities.
Johnson maintained that while it’s an ongoing state issue, federal intervention may be necessary if the current political climate persists.
She concluded, stating it is imperative for lawmakers to ensure that every constituent has a voice in the legislative process, advocating for transparency and integrity in governance.
image source from：keranews
