Minneapolis
Significant Room for Improvement
Hundreds of local jurisdictions restrict cooperation with immigration enforcement to some extent. The vast majority of these restrictions aim to stop the co-optation of local law enforcement, because over the last decade, the federal government has increasingly relied on local criminal justice systems as force multipliers to carry out immigration enforcement.
Cities and counties can resist these tactics through a variety of laws and policies limiting the extent to which local resources, ostensibly devoted to public safety and crime prevention, can be diverted to support enforcement of civil immigration laws. In doing so, they can make clear that local resources and local government prioritizes the safety and inclusion of all residents, regardless of immigration status.
For policy background and further resources, see our toolkit page on ending co-optation of local law enforcement for federal immigration enforcement here.
Minneapolis does not administer any jails, which are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County, which does not have a policy to refuse ICE detainer requests nor one addressing how to interact with federal immigration authorities in any way.
City Data
-
411,452
Total Population -
20.7%
Poverty status in the past 12 months -
901
No. of Police
Racial and Ethnic Demographics
-
9.8%
Latinx -
18.9%
Black/African American -
59.9%
White, non-Hispanic -
6%
Asian
-
1.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native -
0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander -
4.9%
Some other race -
4.9%
2 or more races
1Custody: Does local law enforcement refuse to keep individuals in local custody for a longer period of time at the behest of immigration authorities?
-
y
Do your local law enforcement agencies refuse to comply with ICE detainer requests?
-
y
Does your jurisdiction have a formal policy—either an ordinance or an administrative policy—prohibiting compliance with ICE detainers?
2Immigration Interviews: Do local jails prohibit federal immigration authorities from interviewing, or having any access to, individuals in local custody without a signed judicial warrant?
-
n
Does your jurisdiction have a formal policy in place codifying procedures relating to immigration authorities in the jails?
-
n
Does your local jail prohibit immigration authorities from conducting interviews in the jail?
-
n
If not, does your local jail educate those in custody about their right to refuse to talk to immigration authorities?
-
n
Do jail staff ensure that immigration officials identify themselves clearly before speaking with anyone in custody?
-
n
Does the policy require that authorities identify themselves to those they interview?
3Rights Tranings: Do local jails that allow access by immigration authorities have “know your rights” trainings for those in custody? Do they require that immigration authorities clearly identify themselves to those they interview?
-
n
Does the policy require “know your rights” trainings?
4Release Notification: Do law enforcement refuse requests by immigration authorities to notify them of the date, time, or place of any individual’s release from custody absent a judicial warrant requiring such?
5Information Sharing: If immigration authorities solicit such information, do law enforcement agencies decline to share it? Are officers to exercise discretion where appropriate?
-
n
Are there local policies in place to guide local law enforcement agencies and officers in responding to requests for information from federal immigration authorities?
-
n
Do these policies preserve the discretion of local law enforcement when it comes to the sharing of information about immigration status?
-
n
Do these policies prohibit the sharing of any other kinds of personal or confidential information?
6Status Inquiry: Do law enforcement inquire about an individual’s immigration status?
-
y
Are there state or local laws in place prohibiting local law enforcement officers from inquiring about immigration status?
-
y
If not, is there an absence of any state or local law explicitly permitting or requiring that law enforcement inquire into immigration status?
7Collaboration Policies: Do laws and policies restricting collaboration between law enforcement and federal immigration authorities make exceptions on the basis of prior criminal convictions?
-
y
Do your state and local laws or policies prohibit detainer compliance, information sharing, and/or jail access whether or not a person has certain criminal convictions?
8Contracts: Is local law enforcement prohibited from entering into contracts with federal immigration authorities for (1) the housing of immigration detainees in local jails, or (2) the deputization of local police to act as federal immigration agents?
-
y
Does the jurisdiction not have contracts with ICE (for any purpose)?
-
y
Does the jurisdiction not have an intergovernmental service agreement with the federal government, renting out bed space to ICE in the local jail?
-
y
Does the jurisdiction not have an agreement, under section 287(g)5 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows local police to be deputized as immigration agents?
Methodology
Center for Popular Democracy researchers evaluated each jurisdiction based on a full set of policy criteria as developed in the Reform/Transform toolkit in collaboration with policy experts and advocates. Because the original tool is lengthy and the questions are numerous, we organized the full list of questions into a smaller number of thematic groupings. This process yielded eight broad groupings of questions (which encompassed all of the sub-questions from the original, full-length tool). Read more »