Delgado thinks banning local cooperation with ICE is good now

Since launching his campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado has made a point to begin championing progressive policies and priorities. He has expanded his repertoire of specific bills and issues since launching, with the New York for All Act one of his more recent additions. But after initially expressing opposition to a key provision of the bill – and generally a degree of ignorance of state laws around immigration – Delgado on Wednesday instead said he had not yet taken a position on the measure at the time.

Back in June, at his first public appearance since announcing his campaign, he told reporters that he did not support a state policy that would impose a blanket policy governing how local law enforcement can interact with federal immigration officials. That is a major part of the New York for All Act, which would ban what are known as 287(g) agreements between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local authorities to cooperate on immigration enforcement, and in some cases permit the deputization of police to act as ICE agents.

While speaking with reporters in June, Delgado did not seem particularly well-informed about the current state of immigration protections in the state. 

“We have laws right now that make it clear that the only time we should be cooperating is if there's a judicial warrant or court order,” Delgado said when asked about the New York for All Act. Delgado was wrong; while there is a long-standing executive order that limits state agencies from cooperating with ICE, it is not a state law and only applies to state agencies, not local governments. Delgado additionally asserted “there already are restrictions” in place when it comes to cooperating with ICE. While case law has established that localities cannot honor detainer requests, nothing stops those governments from entering into various cooperation agreements with the federal government.

Asked specifically whether he would support banning local governments from entering into 287(g) agreements with ICE, Delgado said he “wouldn't rule it out,” but said he doesn’t “want to do a blanket rule,” he said, calling the idea “irresponsible.” “The state shouldn't make all localities subject to one policy,” he said.

On Wednesday, though, Delgado attended a rally calling for a special legislative session in part to pass additional immigration protections, including the New York for All Act that would ban 287(g) agreements. Speaking with reporters after the rally, Delgado denied ever suggesting that he didn’t back the New York for All Act. “I think you should look back and look at that conversation, because I think there was confusion in the words being asked, and me trying to get clarity on what you were actually saying,” he said. Delgado also suggested that reporters had not asked him specifically about whether the state should ban 287(g) agreements, even though they had.

When pressed, Delgado admitted that he may have misheard the explicit mention of 287(g) agreements and said that he “can’t remember” whether he had said he opposed a blanket ban on them. “What I was trying to speak to was the generality of what you were asking was a very general statement,” he said. “What I'm trying to speak to is a specific proposed policy that would ban a certain type of contract that we know certain counties have entered into to deputize local law enforcement.” 

Delgado also admitted that he had not yet formed an opinion on the New York for All legislation when he first launched his gubernatorial campaign, though he said he has thought about the issue for some time. “I hadn't yet decided at that point specifically what specific action should be taken under the (New York for All) Act,” he said. “From there, you continue on, you do the work and you proceed, but it's always been something that I've been thinking about.”