Seth Boyes, News Editor
I’ll admit, I didn’t think the letter Winneshiek County Sheriff Dan Marx wrote last week would turn out to be front page news. To me, the sheriff was simply explaining what actions his office might take if immigration officials were to make a local stop or began some sort of local enforcement action. It simply struck me as an effort to provide helpful information and context for area residents and families.
Apparently the governor thought different — as evidenced by her forwarding of the sheriff’s letter to the Iowa Attorney General as part of a complaint, claiming Marx may have violated state law.
But, assuming I’m reading things correctly — and mind you, I’m no law expert — there are a lot of “ifs” at play on both sides of the issue. And the word “if”can be a very important one.
Marx didn’t say he’d resist all federal enforcement actions. Rather, he said he’d assist in executing valid warrants but “block, interfere and interrupt” things like non-judicially vetted detainers. I had to look up that particular term, and I found that the nonprofit American Immigration Council says such detainers are only requests, adding that a law enforcement agency “has discretion to decide which detainers to honor and under what circumstances.”
So I’d say the governor’s concerns are at least debatable.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect paperwork to be in order before law enforcement takes particular action. Years ago, I had to hold law enforcement to that sort of standard while working as a lowly shipping clerk, so I don’t think it’s out of line for the sheriff to do the same from his elected position.
You see, I worked at a packing and shipping outlet in Iowa City for a number of years, and part of our employee training specified that, if law enforcement ever wanted information on any of the dozens of individuals renting a mailbox inside our store, we were legally prohibited from providing that information without a warrant being presented. We only ever had to cross that bridge once in all my years there, but we did as we were required to do. We kindly turned down the officers’ request, but told them they could go up the street to the postmaster’s office and ask for the same information there, but it couldn’t be through us without that warrant.
They had to go through the proper channels.
Things had to be in order.
Kind of like Sheriff Marx is saying.
Now for the other side of this issue. Gov. Reynolds’ response to Marx’s letter stated that a sheriff and the county “can become ineligible to receive state funds if the local entity is found to have intentionally violated the provisions” in a certain section of state law. That last sentence of the governor’s letter generated a lot of headlines ahead of the weekend but, if you’ll notice, that word “if” is in there again.
She didn’t actually say she plans to withhold state funding — though one could infer that. She said, if the sheriff is found to have violated the law, funding could be withheld. And I think that’s an important difference. Things would be a little different if she unilaterally declared the sheriff is in violation.
So, in short, the way I see it, everyone can still be satisfied, despite the sense of tension surrounding the situation. Marx seems to be saying he’ll comply with the law if things are in order, and Reynolds seems to be saying she won’t withhold funding if Marx is found to be in compliance with the law. And that’s a determination that will be made by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird.
Some might remember Bird previously served as chief of staff and legal counsel for former U.S. Rep. Steve King. And some may remember King was a big proponent of what he called “the rule of law.”
I’m no lawyer but, to me, if a county sheriff uses what discretion he’s granted when considering an enforcement request which hasn’t come through a court system, that would seem to fall pretty squarely within the lines when it comes to the rule of law. That sounds like the kind of careful consideration one would want from local law enforcement.
The trouble is the context. Given the pronounced priorities of the Trump Administration and a state attorney general who worked closely with a man whose views on race and immigration ultimately cost him his seat in the U.S. House, some may see the governor’s actions as an attempt to remain in step with the White House. And if that’s truly the case — emphasis on the word “if” — it wouldn’t be hard for voters to see the complaint against Marx as a deterrent against other sheriffs in Iowa who might take similar stances during the next four years or so.
But I admit, that would be an assumption — an if — and the word “if” can be a very important one.
Agree with Seth? Think he’s got it completely backwards or he’s missed the point entirely? Let your voice be heard. Letters to the editor may be emailed to editor@decorahleader.com or dropped off at 110 Washington St. Suite 4 in Decorah.
Submit A Comment
Fill out the form to submit a comment. All comments require approval by our staff before it is displayed on the website.