Elias: Doomed bill to unmask immigration agents still means something

If U.S. senators don’t work to alleviate the fears of their constituents, they probably aren’t doing their jobs very well.

This explains why, even when he knows the measure has no immediate chance for passage, California’s Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla recently introduced new legislation requiring federal immigration enforcement agents to clearly display visible identification during their actions, except those involving stealthy approaches to hideouts of the undocumented.

In California, this should not strike anyone as new or dangerous to law enforcement officers. The state penal code already requires uniformed officers to wear badges or nameplates correctly displaying their identification numbers or names. It means on-duty police, sheriff’s deputies and California Highway Patrol officers cannot conceal either their badges or names.

A current state Senate bill called SB 627 would also make any law enforcement officers masking up while on-duty a misdemeanor, although this most likely could not be enforced on federal officers working for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Border Patrol agencies.

In this case such symbolism is important, though, letting the host of mostly brown-skinned California residents, legal or not, now explicitly targeted by immigration agents know that at least some public officials are on their side.

“Without visible badges, names or insignia, members of the public often have no way to confirm whether they are interacting with legitimate government officials … causing widespread confusion and fear, especially in communities already subject to heightened immigration scrutiny,” Padilla says.

Padilla, like this bill’s New Jersey co-sponsor and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, knows it will not pass the Senate in this session controlled by Republicans aligned with President Trump and his mass-deportation campaign. It means something, though, to many of the targeted — legitimately or not — for prominent senators to take their side.

Then there’s the whole issue of whether immigration agents should be permitted to wear masks or balaclavas in the first place while making arrests. If those under arrest aren’t sure their captors are really government officials, can they be blamed if they resist?

So far, the arrested have not only been blamed in such incidents but often beaten. California officers could not do that. They must be identifiable unless working undercover. Yes, they can be masked when conditions justify it, but their badges must still be visible.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department has so far justified allowing masks and a lack of any identifying markers during individual and mass arrests by claiming that identification would expose agents and their families to danger. Their danger would be no more severe, though, than the supposed peril of California officers who have been openly identified for years.

It’s true that California cops who opposed the current state laws while they were still mere proposals offered precisely the same arguments against identification now being purveyed by Homeland Security. No wave of attacks on California officers has happened, though.

In fact, several online search engines indicate that no incidents of targeting cops based on badge or name visibility have been reported — not even one case in which assailants singled out officers because their uniforms were identifiable as representing a particular agency.

So at least in California, no evidence exists for the kind of danger alleged by Homeland Security. However, such incidents may occur now because of the fear and hatred thus far aroused by masked ICE agents.

Federal rules and laws are not usually based on such conjecture, though. Rather, some actual incidents are usually required for rules to become firm, as they appear to be today.

That’s why “our bill is grounded in law enforcement best practices that would prohibit immigration enforcement officers from wearing face coverings and require them to display name or badge number and the agency they represent,” says Padilla. “We must act to maintain trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”

That reasoning may prevail in the U.S. Senate someday but certainly not while Democrats are in the minority there.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com, and read more of his columns online at californiafocus.net.