After state's threats, a Florida city reverses course on immigration enforcement vote
Under political pressure from Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Fort Myers City Council reversed course on Friday and voted to allow local police to act as federal immigration agents — a development that could push other hesitant cities to bring their local police into the fold of Florida's immigration crackdown.
After a vote Monday when the council rejected the initial federal immigration proposal, the Republican governor raised the possibility of removing local elected officials from office and forcing them into compliance 'one way or another.' Florida's attorney general, James Uthmeier, also told City Council members they were violating Florida's ban on so-called sanctuary cities.
By Friday, the three City Council members who had voted against the proposal flipped their vote. One of them, Darla Bonk, thanked the attorney general's office for stepping in and helping them 'navigate a complex and sensitive situation' and blamed the city attorney for not advising them correctly.
'You are paid handsomely to protect this council, and you failed us,' Bonk told the city attorney, Grant Alley.
The City Council's move to rethink its decision underscores how local governments are trying to determine what local actions to take on federal immigration enforcement as they face new pressures from DeSantis as he positions the state to become the most aggressive in combatting illegal immigration in the interior of the country.
'We've been doing a lot in Florida, but you're going to see a lot more,' DeSantis told Trump's border czar Tom Homan Thursday during a panel discussion at the New College of Florida. 'There is no question.'
In Fort Myers — a community with pockets of Democratic voters in an otherwise Republican region — dozens of residents spoke against letting its police department enter into a formal partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
An ICE partnership would erode community trust, lead to racial discrimination and unlawful detentions and keep victims and witnesses from reporting crimes, residents told city officials on Friday. They made historical parallels to moments in history that led to discriminatory laws — and raised concerns about state officials' influence over local decisions and local elections.
One resident, Kathy James, said she was worried that the governor would suspend an elected official she voted for.
'Are you telling me that my vote is going to mean nothing?' James said, while also noting that she was concerned that local police officers would 'wear two uniforms.'
'They are either ICE agents or they're Fort Myers police,' James said.
In South Florida, other municipalities are also mulling how to act on immigration enforcement in the Trump era. South Miami city officials earlier this week said they plan to ask a judge to determine whether its police department is required to enroll in a federal program that gives local police the ability to stop, question — and even arrest — people who are in the country illegally.
The ICE program — known as the 287(g) task force model — is the same one that Fort Myers wrangled with. Across the state, more than 100 law enforcement agencies are participating in the program, including the police departments in Coral Gables, Key West, Tampa and St. Petersburg.
South Miami Mayor Javier Fernandez said the city wants to involve the court to better understand what the law requires them to do. The city is expected to formally request the courts to get involved next week.
'The only safe harbor left for us is to go to court and ask a court to render an opinion on what the law is and what our obligations are. Not the merits of the policy,' he said at a Tuesday night meeting.
Florida law does not explicitly mandate law enforcement agencies that don't operate county jails to join the ICE partnerships. However, Desantis and the state's attorney general argue that municipal and city police departments must join because they are otherwise violating a Florida law that bans so-called sanctuary cities.
Under the sanctuary city ban, local governments must use 'best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law.'
At the time the law was debated in Tallahassee in 2019, the 287(g) task force model was not active. The model, which is done in the community, was suspended by the Obama administration in 2012 after concerns of racial profiling and a lack of oversight.
During Friday's meeting in Fort Myers, a Republican state representative from the area told City Council members that they had no choice but to sign on to the task force model. It's the law, said state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka,
'The people of Florida have spoken through their elected representatives in the Legislature and through the governor, who was overwhelmingly reelected and the people of Florida have said that we are a law and order state and we have preempted local governments,' Persons-Mulicka added.
The Herald/Times asked the governor's office on Friday whether it intended to remove local officials from office if they declined to enroll in the 287(g) task force model. In response, the office pointed to a recent statement the governor made that told city officials: 'govern yourselves accordingly.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence
In what's become somewhat customary once an Illinois political titan falls, leaders throughout the state responded with condemnation and called for reforms upon hearing Friday that ex-Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison and fined $2.5 million on federal corruption charges. House Republican leader Tony McCombie of Savanna and Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove called for bipartisan ethics reforms in the wake of the sentencing, with Curran specifically requesting committee hearings and votes on potential changes — something that didn't happen this session. Madigan's sentencing was 'a stark and shameful reminder of the corruption that has plagued Illinois government for far too long,' McCombie said in a statement. 'Justice was served — but the damage to public trust runs deep.' But Illinois' last prominent statewide politician who went to federal prison, former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, held back on the chance to take a swipe at a bitter nemesis when Madigan was sentenced. Though the two were Democrats, they feuded for nearly all six years Blagojevich was in office between 2003 and 2009. 'When that guy, Madigan, was on the top of the mountain, they were all kissing his ass,' Blagojevich said. 'Now they're going to be stomping all over his grave. And it's really, it's really sort of an unappealing side of human nature.' Blagojevich said Madigan's conviction underscores the systemic problems in politics and government in the state Capitol. 'Is the system in Springfield corrupt, in many ways, absolutely,' Blagojevich said in an interview with the Tribune while insisting he didn't break the law. 'It's a system, I've been saying this from the beginning, it all too often works for itself on the backs of the people.' Blagojevich — whose 14-year federal prison sentence for corruption was commuted by President Donald Trump, who ultimately also pardoned Blagojevich — didn't want to celebrate Madigan's prison sentence despite the two's often-tense relationship. 'I just don't think it's right for me to kick a man when he's down,' Blagojevich said. 'What's happening now to him, I know what it's like. And it's really easy for these politicians to get on their high horses and start kicking someone, stomping on someone.' Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park who is facing a potential fine of nearly $10 million from the Illinois State Board of Elections for improper political fundraising, said Friday's sentence represented 'a solemn reminder' that the duty of public office holders is to serve 'and that there is accountability for those who do not.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio

35 minutes ago
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But the iconic American steelmaker and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a ' golden share" — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected against cutbacks in steel production. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership," the two companies said. "This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. U.S. Steel rose $2.66, or 5%, to $54.85 in afterhours trading Friday. Nippon Steel's original bid to buy the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in late 2023 had been valued at $55 per share. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work, what other provisions are in the national security agreement and how specifically the $11 billion would be spent. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the order 'ensures U.S. Steel will remain in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and be safeguarded as a critical element of America's national and economic security.' James Brower, a Morrison Foerster lawyer who represents clients in national security-related matters, said such agreements with the government typically are not disclosed to the public, particularly by the government. They can become public, but it's almost always disclosed by a party in the transaction, such as a company — like U.S. Steel — that is publicly held, Brower said. The mechanics of how a golden share would work will depend on the national security agreement, but in such agreements it isn't unusual to give the government approval rights over specific activities, Brower said. U.S. Steel made no filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday. Nippon Steel originally offered nearly $15 billion to purchase U.S. Steel in an acquisition that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. As it sought to win over American officials, Nippon Steel gradually increased the amount of money it was pledging to invest into U.S. Steel. American officials now value the transaction at $28 billion, including the purchase bid and a new electric arc furnace — a more modern steel mill that melts down scrap — that they say Nippon Steel will build in the U.S. after 2028. Nippon Steel had pledged to maintain U.S. Steel's headquarters in Pittsburgh, put U.S. Steel under a board with a majority of American citizens and keep plants operating. It also said it would protect the interests of U.S. Steel in trade matters and it wouldn't import steel slabs that would compete with U.S. Steel's blast furnaces in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, and using his authority Biden blocked the transaction on his way out of the White House. But Trump expressed openness to working out an arrangement once he returned to the White House in January. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans,' although Nippon Steel has never backed off its stated intention of buying and controlling U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' Trump said. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction.