New Jersey GOP Candidate Criticizes State’s Police Policies as Limiting Cooperation with ICE

New Jersey GOP Candidate Criticizes State’s Police Policies as Limiting Cooperation with ICE

FIRST ON FOX: An internal email from the New Jersey State Police highlighted a directive that instructed officers to refrain from complying with federal arrest warrants, drawing significant attention to the state’s sanctuary policies. This email was publicly disclosed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli, who pointed to the policies along with Democratic leaders as the source of the issue.

On March 24, Ciattarelli received the email and stated that he doesn’t hold New Jersey State Police Superintendent Col. Patrick Callahan responsible; instead, he attributes the circumstances to existing state policies. Ciattarelli expressed, “The fact that my campaign received this email is evidence that brave and courageous law enforcement officers throughout New Jersey are angry about being handcuffed by liberal Democrat policies in Trenton, making our communities less safe.”

Ciattarelli went on to place blame squarely on New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Attorney General Matt Platkin, and the Democrat-controlled legislature, condemning what he termed the Immigrant Trust Directive as an example of absurd policy-making. He outlined his vision for reevaluating the state’s approach to immigration enforcement by stating, “We will be partners with the Trump Administration in fixing our immigration system and restoring law and order” if he wins the upcoming gubernatorial election.

The email, acquired from Ciattarelli’s campaign and reviewed by Fox News Digital, revealed that New Jersey State Police officers are prohibited from following through on what are referred to as “Outstanding Administrative Warrants of Removal from the United States.” Recent data indicates that there are approximately 27,000 such warrants listed in the National Crime Information Center.

The email also specified that state police personnel are not authorized to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement using the designated phone number. In providing this directive, Callahan aimed to clarify the limitations placed on enforcement actions by local and state officials in relation to federal immigration directives.

According to the directive from the Attorney General’s Office, law enforcement officials in New Jersey, excluding federal authorities, are allowed to assist federal law enforcement agents only when the assistance pertains specifically to enforcing federal civil immigration law. This restriction has been a source of tension during the current gubernatorial race, as candidates present diverging views on immigration enforcement strategies.

Conflicting Views on Immigration Enforcement

Recent debates have underscored the stark differences between Democratic candidates and their Republican counterparts regarding immigration issues. For instance, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop and Congressman Josh Gottheimer discussed the Laken Riley Act during a recent debate, a bipartisan measure signed into law by former President Donald Trump which expands the scope of crimes that could lead to custody by the Department of Homeland Security.

Fulop raised concerns about this legislation, stating, “The Laken Riley Act served to undermine the authority of the attorney general here in New Jersey. It is a very dangerous piece of legislation as it relates to the autonomy of the governor and the attorney general here, and it should not have been supported.” Such discussions reflect a growing divide among New Jersey politicians on the handling of immigration law.

Murphy’s Controversial Stance

Last month, Governor Murphy drew attention to himself when he suggested that he had a migrant living in his home, with uncertainty surrounding the individual’s legal status. Murphy stated that he and his wife, Tammy, welcomed someone into their household after acknowledging her unresolved immigration status. “And good luck to the feds trying to get her,” he added, further igniting the ongoing debate.

Attorney General Defends Directive

Attorney General Platkin provided a statement to Fox News Digital, emphasizing the rationale behind the Immigrant Trust Directive. He declared, “Our number one priority is keeping New Jerseyans safe. The Immigrant Trust Directive ensures that New Jersey police officers spend their time tackling pressing public safety issues like violent crime, gun violence, and drug trafficking.” He maintained that the directive also allows victims and witnesses of crime to come forward without fear of retaliation based on their immigration status.

Platkin further noted, “Under the Immigrant Trust Directive, state and local law enforcement have and will continue to work with federal authorities to remove violent criminals from this country. Plain and simple, there is no sanctuary for criminals in New Jersey.” His statements aimed to reassure residents that the directive’s purpose is to enhance public safety rather than hinder law enforcement efforts.

He continued, explaining that the directive was drafted and enforced with the support of law enforcement leaders, including representatives from the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey and the New Jersey Association of Chiefs of Police. This coalition recently released guidance clarifying the directive’s importance in balancing the enforcement of law while ensuring community trust in law enforcement.

Awaiting Responses from Murphy’s Administration

Thus far, officials from Murphy’s office and the Department of Homeland Security have not provided comments regarding this controversy in time for publication. As the election approaches, the differing perspectives on immigration enforcement, public safety, and community trust are likely to remain hotly debated topics in New Jersey.

The current political landscape in New Jersey showcases the complexities surrounding immigration policy and its impact on local law enforcement. The ongoing discourse not only reveals the challenges faced by police officers but also highlights the varying opinions among political leaders regarding how to best balance public safety with the rights and trust of all residents.