THE CASE OF SB. 178: ACCOUNTABILITY AND BUREAUCRACY AT THE CROSSROAD

Integrity Intercept Eyes on the Truth, Intercept #17

Sheriffs and Chiefs

March 19, 2025

Background to Senate Bill 178

Senate Bill 178 represents a proverbial fork in the road, focusing squarely on the contractual relationships between local law enforcement and the federal government. The legislation mandates that certain local law enforcement agencies apply for—and ultimately enter into—agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a condition for enforcing immigration laws.

Its core stipulation reads:

AN ACT concerning law enforcement agencies; relating to enforcement of immigration laws; requiring certain law enforcement agencies to apply for and enter into agreements with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; providing a cause of action and penalties for failure to comply. (1)

For the full legislative text and detailed fiscal notes, see the Kansas Senate Bill 178 Text.

Key Concerns Raised by Sheriff Byron Roberson: Implications for ICE Contracts and Public Safety

Sheriff Byron Roberson, newly elected and serving as the president of the Johnson County Police Chiefs and Sheriff’s Association, has raised significant concerns regarding local law enforcement’s potential contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In a letter addressed to Attorney General Kris Kobach, Sheriff Roberson conveyed the collective apprehensions of the Police Chiefs and Sheriff’s Association.

Sheriff Roberson’s dual role is historically unprecedented, as he simultaneously serves as the Sheriff of Johnson County and the president of the Police Chiefs and Sheriff’s Association. Previously, as Prairie Village Chief of Police, he was elected president of the Police Chiefs Association. This dual leadership underscores his influence in shaping law enforcement policies across the county.

In Johnson County, police chiefs from all 17 cities report to their respective city councils. However, the Sheriff, elected directly by the people of Johnson County, operates independently of the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners. While the Sheriff collaborates with the Board on budgetary matters, he is not subordinate to it—a distinction that has sparked political tension, particularly among Democratic members of the Board, who may prefer greater oversight.

Sheriff Roberson’s letter suggests a unified stance among the Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, expressing reservations about entering into agreements with ICE. This collective voice highlights a broader debate over the balance between federal and local authority in law enforcement, as well as the implications for public safety and community trust.

Encouraging Civic Engagement on SB 178

This article urges citizens to contact their local city councils to inquire whether they align with the letter dated February 13, 2025, sent to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. The letter, authored by Sheriff Byron Roberson, raises critical questions about the implications of SB 178 and its alignment with federal immigration policies.

At its core, the debate centers on why local authorities might oppose establishing contracts to support ICE in advancing President Trump’s immigration agenda. To provide context, Attorney General Kris Kobach and Kansas Bureau of Investigation Director Tony Mattivi have authorized the implementation of Section 287(g). This federal law empowers ICE to delegate specific immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement officers under its oversight. (2)

The necessity of SB 178 raises broader constitutional questions. Federal law holds supremacy over state law, meaning states cannot enact legislation that contradicts federal statutes. The Constitution explicitly assigns immigration responsibilities to the federal government. Yet, some states have attempted to “re-write” their own immigration policies, creating a complex and contentious legal landscape.

By engaging with their city councils, citizens can better understand where their local leaders stand on these critical issues and contribute to shaping the future of immigration enforcement in their communities.

States’ Rights and the Role of Local Law Enforcement

Under the 10th Amendment, states retain police power within their borders, granting them the right to decline certain federal requests. For instance, states can choose not to assist ICE agents in immigration enforcement. Oregon exemplifies this approach, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from collaborating with federal authorities on immigration matters.

Similarly, in 2021, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed legislation barring local jurisdictions from working with ICE to execute deportations. While the federal government may attempt to influence state policies through measures like funding cuts or deploying military troops, states maintain their autonomy in these decisions. (3)

Senate Bill 178: Current Status

Introduced on February 4, 2025, Senate Bill 178 focuses on formalizing agreements between local law enforcement and ICE. A hearing scheduled for March 6, 2025, was canceled, leaving the bill pending in the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee. This delay has sparked questions about the opposition from the newly elected Democratic Sheriff and County Police Chiefs.

Key Concerns:

#1 Erosion of Local Control

One of the primary concerns highlighted in this debate is the potential erosion of local control. A 2017 article from The Hill argued that it is not the role of local law enforcement to perform ICE’s duties, emphasizing that police should not initiate investigations “solely to determine a person’s immigration status.” LAPD Chief Daryl Gates underscored the importance of community trust, warning that aggressive immigration enforcement could drive residents “into the shadows.” (4)

This perspective is supported by a 2013 study on Latino perceptions of police involvement in immigration enforcement:

44% of Latinos surveyed reported being less likely to contact police if they were victims of a crime.

45% said they were less likely to voluntarily provide information about crimes due to fears of being questioned about their immigration status.

70% of undocumented immigrants indicated they would avoid contacting law enforcement if they were crime victims. (5)

Federal Pushback Against Sanctuary Policies

In January 2018, ICE Director Thomas Homan called for the Department of Justice to file charges against sanctuary cities and hold politicians supporting such policies “personally accountable.” Citing 18 USC 1324, Homan noted that it is a federal crime to “knowingly… conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” undocumented individuals. However, limiting local law enforcement’s involvement in ICE’s work is not equivalent to obstructing ICE agents from performing their duties. (4)

#2 Erosion of Local Control in Immigration Enforcement

This concern raises a critical question: How does assisting ICE potentially erode local control over illegal immigration? Consider the following scenario:

Imagine an individual commits murder in Mexico and subsequently flees to the United States. Local law enforcement encounters this person—perhaps following a barroom altercation—and, upon arrest, discovers through fingerprints and ID that Mexican authorities are seeking their extradition for involvement in a murder. In such a case, the local police would prioritize addressing the crime committed on U.S. soil. Afterwards, they would notify the Department of Homeland Security that they are holding an individual flagged with an ICE hold.

Essentially, if local authorities report an illegal immigrant involved in offenses like battery or property destruction, ICE can then act to return the individual to Mexican judicial control.

Doesn’t this process restore local (Mexican) control over a crime committed there? If so, why can’t this same logic be applied to immigration enforcement within the United States—especially when an illegal migrant is also a criminal? Currently, the prevailing action appears to be a motion to expedite deportation (once the individual is either convicted or released on bail), effectively sending them back onto our streets without necessarily addressing broader local control issues.

#3 – Legal and Liability Risks

The letter cautions that “immigration law is incredibly complex,” and claims that Senate Bill 178 exposes untrained local officers and cities to significant risks of civil rights violations and legal liabilities—potentially leading to costly lawsuits. This is a serious concern for any local agency tasked with enforcing federal immigration policies.

However, according to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) and the Attorney General’s Office, efforts are underway to address these risks. In fact, a limited number of KBI agents are receiving specialized ICE training. This training authorizes them to arrest undocumented individuals, execute warrants for certain immigration violations, and issue immigration detainers. This proactive approach aims to ensure that those enforcing the law are properly equipped to do so. (5)

It’s also important to remember that while the focus is often on the rights and status of undocumented individuals, the enforcement actions should prioritize the protection of our citizens’ civil rights—ensuring that local law enforcement does not inadvertently compromise the liberties of individuals who respect our laws.

#4 – Unfunded Mandate

The letter states, “Local agencies are already grappling with staffing shortages, tight budgets, and rising crime rates.”

Some argue that these challenges are exacerbated by illegal immigration.

According to the January 11, 2024, hearing, “The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Taxpayers”, several key points emerged:

Fiscal Drain: Illegal immigrants are considered a net fiscal drain. Although they work and contribute taxes—including income and payroll taxes—their lower average education levels typically lead to lower earnings, resulting in tax contributions that fall short of covering the cost of the services they receive.

Welfare Dependency: A significant number of illegal immigrants qualify for welfare programs, with benefits often extending to their U.S.-born children. Like their less-educated, low-income U.S.-born counterparts, the tax payments made by illegal immigrants rarely offset the cost incurred by the public sector. (6)

Legal Priority: On February 20, 2025, IRLI petitioned the Supreme Court to review a case challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s authority regarding job allocations for aliens in the United States. This move emphasizes that American citizens should have priority in job allocation decisions. (7)

In the context of Senate Bill 178, critics contend that mandating local agencies to assist in ICE operations represents an unfunded mandate—forcing already strained communities to absorb additional costs without new funding.

#5 – Punitive Funding Restrictions

Sheriff Roberson rightly points out that Senate Bill 178 penalizes agencies for noncompliance. This is accurate, and proponents argue that punitive measures are necessary to ensure accountability when current approaches fail to deliver positive results. By adhering to the law, communities could avoid additional financial burdens stemming from poor decision-making by law enforcement agencies.

The letter also highlights Sheriff Roberson’s alignment with organizations such as Loud Light—a left-leaning NGO promoting liberal and Democratic agendas—as well as the ACLU and the Good Faith Network. These groups have voiced opposition to SB 178. (8)

Supporters of the bill, however, emphasize its financial feasibility. Training costs for FY 2026 are projected at $81,202, with FY 2027 costs estimated at $85,262, both to be covered by the State General Fund. (9)

To better understand the perspective of organizations like Loud Light, one might consider Elon Musk’s interview with Joe Rogan (Episode 2281), particularly around the 15:42 mark. Musk critiques the phrase “threats to our democracy,” suggesting that “threat to bureaucracy” more accurately reflects the issue.

He argues that unelected bureaucratic entities often wield more power than elected officials, a dynamic that has shifted with the advent of the Department of Government Efficiency. This department seeks to expose misallocated funds, representing the first significant challenge to bureaucratic power in decades.

In the interview, Rogan asks Musk, “What part was most shocking?” Musk responds, “The scale of the funding was alarming,” citing instances where individuals received substantial sums—such as $1.9 billion—for NGOs that remained inactive for years. This raises critical questions about accountability in government-funded NGOs, where terms like “Peace” or “Threat to our Democracy” can obscure their true actions. (10)

Law enforcement and illegal immigration issues could be significantly mitigated if authorities prioritized addressing white-collar crimes that fuel illegal immigration and constitutional violations. These efforts could redirect resources currently consumed by non-governmental programs that drain funds meant for citizens. The mandate from the last election is clear: the government must address immigration and waste.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu wisely said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Similarly, taxpayers may feel compelled to contact their city councils and Sheriff’s offices to inquire whether their positions align with the Sheriff’s letter from the Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association. SB 178 could very well be the elephant in the room, demanding attention and action.