Immigration enforcement hearing highlights lack of protocol for local, federal collaboration

Yahoo

20-05-2025

Rep. Deqa Dhalac (D-South Portland) presents legislation to the Judiciary Committee on May 19 that would restrict the scope of immigration-related work of individual law enforcement officers and state employees. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star)
As some communities in Maine have clashed, with varying outcomes, over local police contracting with federal immigration authorities, legislators are pushing for new state laws that would make those decisions universal.
On Monday, dozens of people packed the Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee room, spilling into two overflow rooms, to testify largely in support of two bills proposed by Democrats that would restrict local authorities from carrying out federal immigration enforcement.
For the most part, testimony for and against plans in Augusta mirrored the arguments that have been voiced in board meetings in a coastal community in Southern Maine. In April, the Wells Police Department became the first local agency in Maine to contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under what's called the 287(g) program, which has divided the community.
After the 287(g) program was discontinued in 2012 due to the discovery of discriminatory practices such as racial profiling, President Donald Trump revived it to bolster ICE's capacity by deputizing local police officers to detain immigrants, an authority otherwise generally reserved to federal authorities.
Wells community divided over ICE agreement with local police
Participation is growing across the country. As of Monday, ICE had signed 588 agreements with agencies in 40 states. Six states have laws or policies that prohibit participation, according to ICE.
Wells remains the only local agency in the program in Maine. Monmouth Winthrop Police Department, a combination of departments that serve central Maine communities, applied for the program but withdrew its application after community pushback.
While immigration is a federal matter by law, work on the local level is key. An estimated 70% of ICE arrests nationwide over the past decade have been handoffs from state or local authorities.
The effect of both bills, LD 1259 and LD 1971, would be to prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from carrying out the work of federal immigration authorities.
LD 1259 would do so by explicitly prohibiting contracts with such authorities, while LD 1971 would place restrictions on enforcement activities absent such formal agreements, which is the case for the majority of police departments in Maine that currently have local discretion regarding when to involve federal officials.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A fine point was placed on that subjectivity when Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland) questioned Kennebec County Sheriff Ken Mason, who testified against both bills on behalf of the Maine Sheriffs Association's Legislative Policy Committee, about general police protocols for when to involve federal agents, in light of a routine traffic stop in Waldo County leading to two immigration detentions.
'At what point in that dichotomy of events is the decision made to contact Border Patrol and why?' Talbot Ross asked.
Mason responded, 'I have to rely on my deputies and the supervisors that are working the road that day to make a judgment call on if they believe they need to call somebody.'
The text of LD 1259 is succinct. Sponsored by Rep. Ambureen Rana (D-Bangor), the legislation would prohibit state or local law enforcement agencies or officers from entering into contracts with federal immigration enforcement authorities.
LD 1971, sponsored by Rep. Deqa Dhalac (D-South Portland), would restrict the scope of immigration-related work of individual law enforcement officers and state employees regardless of federal contracts.
Specifically, LD 1971 would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from 'stopping, investigating, interrogating, arresting or detaining' a person for immigration enforcement purposes. This would include in response to a hold request, immigration detainer or administrative warrant issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
It would also prevent law enforcement from holding someone solely for immigration enforcement purposes for longer than 48 hours and establish clear protocols during custody, including requiring law enforcement to inform incarcerated people of their rights before an interview by an immigration authority.
Home rule is wonderful until it comes to our constitutional rights, which our federal authorities are violating right now.
– Ambureen Rana
The bill specifies that it would not prohibit a law enforcement agency from arresting, detaining or performing other law enforcement duties due to reasons not solely based on the person's immigration status.
Other than law enforcement, LD 1971 would prohibit state employees from inquiring into immigration status unless the inquiry is required by law or necessary to provide the service sought by the resident.
Proponents say that allowing local police to carry out federal immigration enforcement would erode public trust and safety.
Lisa Parisio, policy director at the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Maine's only state-wide immigration legal services organization, said ILAP's clients have already reported that they've decided to not call the police when they wanted to out of fear for their own safety and that they are scared to continue serving as a witness in court.
Some of their clients have also reported that they're not pursuing higher education out of fear of immigration enforcement, which Parisio described as a loss to Maine's future economy.
Many who testified focused on cost. Proponents said the bills would protect local tax dollars from being strained to carry out federal responsibilities.
Under 287(g) agreements, ICE is responsible for the cost of training and information technology infrastructure, however the local law enforcement agency bears all other costs, including personnel expenses such as salary and overtime, benefits and lawsuits, according to the general memorandum of understanding.
Rep. Elizabeth Caruso (R-Caratunk) said she appreciated this local control argument but asked Rana, in that spirit, why not leave the decision of whether to contract with federal immigration authorities up to local communities?
'I believe that we shouldn't be tying the hands of our local law enforcement by allowing the federal government to pressure them into these agreements,' Rana responded. 'Home rule is wonderful until it comes to our constitutional rights, which our federal authorities are violating right now.'
Many proponents also highlighted this latter point, that they do not want local police to be implicated with a federal agency that has been accused of disregarding due process.
Immigration detention increase reveals expanded federal operations in Maine
Auburn Police Chief Jason Moen, who testified against both bills on behalf of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, said he reviewed information about the 287(g) program and decided against his department participating. However, he does not think the blanket ban on such agreements in Rana's bill is the right approach, nor the restrictions on cooperating with federal authorities for immigration matters in the other bill.
'It disrupts long standing partnerships among local, state and federal agencies and will prevent local law enforcement from exercising discretion in critical situations,' Moen said.
Moen and Mason from the Maine Sheriffs Association were the only two people to testify against the bills on Monday. Other groups submitted testimony in opposition, including the Maine County Commissioners Association to LD 1259.
The association's legislative policy committee co-chairs, Stephen Gordon and Jean-Marie Caterina, wrote that the legislation could put at risk federal funding that county jails receive to detain people accused of violating federal law.
'These funds help defray county jail operating costs, which is good for local property taxpayers who are asked to fund the great bulk of the cost of operating county jails,' they wrote.
As Maine has seen an uptick in immigration detentions, some immigrants rights advocates have raised concern about the financial incentives prisons and jails have to assist with the Trump administration's goal of expanding space for immigration detention.
The Democratic proposals come after Republicans presented a conflicting bill last month that would prevent local agencies from adopting any policies that restrict them from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
None of these bills have received committee votes yet and there is only a month left until lawmakers are expected to conclude their work for the first year of Maine's two-year Legislative session. Rana told Maine Morning Star that the intention is for the Legislature to make its decisions on the topic this year.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE