Matt Driscoll: Closing the Northwest Detention Center now is not realistic. Or right.

Shut it down.

That was the sentiment expressed by many who attended an April public hearing to discuss Tacoma’s interim regulations for correctional facilities, which was a not-so-subtle attempt to block any expansion of the privately owned and operated Northwest Detention Center.

They and others think the giant immigration facility on the Tideflats is inhumane and has become a symbol of President Trump’s draconian immigration policy.

They’re not wrong.

But while shuttering the facility — a pipe dream at this point — or limiting its expansion might sooth the city’s burdened psyche, it’s not a realistic answer. Or the right one.

Why?

Because such a move alone would have unfortunate, unintended consequences for immigrants entangled in the system, according to a local coalition that includes prominent immigration scholars and immigration-justice advocates.

In weighing what steps the city should take in handling the detention center, one of the main questions that must be answered before getting to the larger issues is a straightforward one, said Robin Jacobson, an associate professor of politics and government at the University of Puget Sound.

“Do we really care about the real lives of the people we’re impacting?” said Jacobson, an expert on immigration politics and policy.

Closing the detention center, or even limiting its expansion, would hurt immigrants more than it would help them, she argued.

She pointed to a network of advocates and service providers that have stepped up or blossomed in Tacoma in the decade-plus since the facility opened.

All, in one way or another, work to protect the rights and fair treatment of immigrants. They also provide what amounts to informal oversight through civic engagement and vigilance. Such a network simply doesn’t exist everywhere.

Jacobson rightly points out that unless the federal policies that make facilities like the the Northwest Detention Center possible are simultaneously dismantled, Tacoma ridding itself of the facility would have little impact.

At best, it would only serve to insulate us from the problem.

Because without that change in federal policy, immigrants not housed at the Tacoma facility would be housed elsewhere.

That might be in city and county jails, as the Trump administration works to ramp up the number of people being detained and deported. Or, it could be places like Lumpkin, Georgia, sometimes referred to as the “black hole of the immigration system,” where the number of people detained exceeds the population of the town itself.

“It would be a lot better to not attempt to close down this facility, unless we’re moving toward closing all detention facilities,” Jacobson said.

Jacobson acknowledges that closing or restricting the Northwest Detention Center might make us “feel better, like we’re not complicit.”

“To chant ‘Shut it down!’ feels good, but then people get to go back to their lives afterward and think they’ve chalked up a victory,” she said. “But it isn’t really a victory.”

Instead, Jacobson says, we must “keep our eye on the prize.” She means we all have a stake in an unjust federal immigration system and our efforts to fix it should have an impact on that level.

That reality continues to be true, even as the city council recently settled on less-restrictive interim regulations for private and public prisons than the ones that were discussed (and favored by many citizens) back during that optimistic April public hearing.

So if closing or limiting the detention center’s expansion isn’t the answer for Tacoma’s conflict of conscience, what might be?

Jacobson offered two concrete and realistic local steps we could take to push back.

First, find a way to ensure people locked up at the detention center have adequate access to legal representation, something many of them now lack.

In New York, the city has launched an effort to provide lawyers to poor immigrants facing deportation. A similar effort here could have a big impact, she said.

If they had greater access to legal help, immigrants locked up on the Tideflats could “get out quicker” and would be less likely to “get lost in the system,” Jacobson said.

She acknowledged that Tacoma isn’t as big as New York and certainly doesn’t have the same resources, but she said partnering with cities like Seattle or even the state could work.

Jacobson also argues that while Tacoma has settled for its designation as a “Welcoming City,” leaders should have the political will to go farther. She describes Tacoma’s “Welcoming City” status as one largely concerned with “PR and economic growth,” and not much more.

Instead, declaring Tacoma a full-blown sanctuary city — meaning Tacoma would formally put on the books policies that would help “shut off the valve that brings people into the detention regime in the first place,” in Jacobson’s words — would be more than just talk.

Doing both would be immigration victories for which Tacoma actually could be proud.

This story was originally published June 3, 2017 at 7:00 AM with the headline "Matt Driscoll: Closing the Northwest Detention Center now is not realistic. Or right.."