CT lawmakers vote to expand immigrant protections amid Trump deportation campaign
With federal agents arresting immigrants nationwide on a constant basis, Connecticut lawmakers voted Wednesday to strengthen the current law to maintain the independence of state and municipal police.
The controversial Connecticut Trust Act blocks local police from making an arrest that is based only on a request by federal agents in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
After five hours of debate, the state House of Representatives voted 96 to 51 on largely party lines to expand the existing Trust Act. The only three House Democrats to vote with the Republicans and against the bill were Rep. Chris Poulos of Southington, Rep. Patrick Boyd of Pomfret, and Rep. Michael DiGiovancarlo, a law-and-order lawmaker with a longtime background as a police officer in Waterbury.
The measure still requires approval by the state Senate, which is controlled 25-11 by Democrats. Gov. Ned Lamont supports the bill, his spokesman said Wednesday.
State officials maintain that ICE agents can still do their jobs, while the local police can separately perform their own duties in law enforcement.
'We're not impeding any federal ability to come in and do what they have the right to do by law, but we're putting protections on it,' said House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat. 'Do I think people should be going into courtrooms and grabbing people? No. That's not fair to the judges. It's not fair to the individuals, the prosecutors, the jurors. That's not what a courthouse is for. When you walk down the courthouse steps, that's a different ballgame — and that's federal law that governs that.'
Ritter added, 'The parameters we can set are, to the extent that the state has control over state employees or judicial employees, we can limit what information they share on a voluntary basis. They can't call up ICE and say, 'Someone was jaywalking. We have them, and I believe they are here undocumented.' What we can't do is tell ICE that they don't have the right to come into anywhere in the state, unfortunately, and do what they have to do.'
But Republicans blasted the bill, saying that Democrats were taking the existing law and making it worse.
State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking House Republican on the legislature's judiciary committee, criticized the bill on multiple levels.
'I think our federal officials should know what is going on today,' Fishbein said, adding that the legislature is 'not only violating the Constitution, but it is doubling down.'
He added, 'It is giving more rights to illegal aliens than lawful citizens. … That is very troubling.'
Among the key issues of contention is the bill would allow those arrested to file civil lawsuits against municipalities for injunctive relief and declaratory judgements. In addition, if they won their case, they would be entitled to legal fees. Democrats strongly defended the expansion of the current law, saying it would help those who have been wronged.
'They may have already been deported,' said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport attorney who co-chairs the judiciary committee. 'They may have already suffered some harm.'
Unlike the underlying bill, a Republican amendment called for either side to receive attorney's fees, depending if they won the case. In addition, lawmakers said that those filing the lawsuits could 'jump the line' and have their cases heard more quickly as they would be given higher priority. The Republican amendment on attorney's fees failed on a party line vote of 97-48 with six members absent.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky, a Republican attorney, condemned the legislation in its entirety.
'The Trust Act is a travesty. It is an insult to the people of this state,' Dubitsky said. 'The very purpose of the Trust Act is to prevent criminals from being taken and arrested by federal law enforcement for federal crimes. … We don't want them here. We don't want them in our cities. We want them caught, and we want them to be deported. Why would we want to make it harder for federal law enforcement to do just that?'
Dubitsky added, 'The entire Trust Act should be balled up into a little ball and thrown into the garbage. … I support the amendment, and I hate the Trust Act.'
Republicans charged that the bill lowered the penalties for failing to appear in court on a first offense, but Democrats said it was related to relatively minor incidents.
'It's dealing with misdemeanor charges,' said Stafstrom. 'Maybe someone got sick in the family or maybe they forgot they had a court date that day.'
Later, Stafstrom said that due process rights are highly important, citing key differences between criminals who are convicted and those whose charges are still pending.
'Those who are merely accused are treated different,' Stafstrom said.
In his wrap-up remarks, House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, an East Hartford Democrat, said the bill was needed 'to protect the dignity of individuals' living in Connecticut.
'They are our neighbors,' Rojas told his House colleagues. 'Their children sit next to our children, right across the river in East Hartford and Manchester. .. These people are humans. We should reject referring to them as illegal. … There are legitimate concerns that have been raised about crime. … Immigrants commit crimes less frequently than the general population. I would prefer that our federal government do their job and fix our broken immigration system.'
After more than four hours of debate, state Rep. Farley Santos stood up on the House floor and said that he is likely the only formerly undocumented person currently serving in the legislature. Born in Brazil, he said that his parents moved to the United States and paid into Social Security throughout their working lives but never collected any money from the program.
'I urge my colleagues to have some compassion,' said Santos, a Danbury Democrat. 'I urge you to have compassion in your heart. The vast majority of immigrants are not doing harm in their community.'
Nationally, immigration gained widespread attention last year during the presidential election campaign when President Donald J. Trump promised to target immigrants and deliver widespread deportations. Since taking office, he has issued an executive order that would allow ICE to make arrests in churches and schools, which was traditionally not done in the past. While he initially said deportation efforts would focus on violent criminals, ICE has reportedly targeted legal immigrants, notably those who have protested for Palestinian rights, and undocumented people with no criminal history as well.
Lawmakers have been working behind the scenes this year at the state Capitol to upgrade the Trust Act that was originally passed in Connecticut in 2013 on a unanimous basis during the tenure of then-President Barack Obama.
About 15 states have similar laws, and Connecticut is generally deemed as liberal on the issue.
In the bill, lawmakers listed a series of felony crimes in which local police could communicate with ICE. The immigrant could be detained if they had been convicted of the crimes, including strangulation, possessing child sexual abuse material in the second degree, commercial sexual exploitation of a minor, and criminal violation of a protective order.
'We're trying to strike the right balance,' Stafstrom told his colleagues on the House floor. 'This bill expands the list of exemptions, expands the list on which our state and local police can hold someone.'
State Rep. Greg Howard, a Stonington Republican who has worked as a police officer for more than two decades, listed a series of felony crimes that would not be mentioned by local officers to ICE, including stealing a firearm, criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and damaging public transportation for terrorism purposes.
'We're handicapping our own municipalities with this legislation,' Howard said. 'I don't want criminals in my state. News flash. … I'm not going to apologize for that today or ever. … I don't care what your status is in this country. I don't. … If you get convicted of these felonies, in my experience, you have a limited regard for life. That makes you a danger.'
While the House was still debating, Senate Republicans called for Gov. Ned Lamont to veto the bill.
'As ICE is effectively getting violent illegal aliens off of Connecticut's streets, the Democrat-controlled legislature at our state Capitol is seeking to pass a bill shielding them from federal authorities,' said Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding and fellow colleagues. 'That bill is an expansion of the Trust Act, which already limits when law enforcement can work with federal immigration agents.'
The Republicans added, 'The governor should publicly announce he will veto it if it hits his desk. Stop projecting weakness and stand up to your party, governor.'
Lamont's chief spokesman, Rob Blanchard, said Lamont views the legislation favorably.
'The governor was proud to sign legislation in 2019 that updated the Trust Act and strengthened the relationship between local law enforcement and their communities, without burdening them with the responsibilities of the federal government,' Blanchard said. 'His priority has always been making sure people feel safe in our schools, churches, and elsewhere and that regardless of status, criminals are kept off our streets. The changes under discussion today, which the governor would support, help in that mission.'
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DHS wants National Guard to search for and transport unaccompanied migrant children
A Department of Homeland Security request for 21,000 National Guard troops to support "expansive interior immigration enforcement operations" includes a call for troops to search for unaccompanied children in some cases and transport them between states, three sources briefed on the plan tell NBC News. Having National Guard troops perform such tasks, which are not explained in detail in the DHS request, has prompted concern among Democrats in Congress and some military and law enforcement officials. The tasks are laid out in a May 9th Request for Assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon. The document states that, 'this represents the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the deployment of National Guard personnel in support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' The request calls for National Guard troops to be used for 'Search and Rescue for UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in remote or hostile terrain,' and 'Intra- and inter-state transport of detainees/ unaccompanied alien children (UACs)," without clearly explaining what that would entail. Most of the troops, about 10,000, would be used for transporting detained individuals, the DHS said. Roughly 2,500 troops would be used for detention support but the document does not specify where. Another 1,000 troops would be assigned to administrative support, such as processing detainees. The request also asks for up to 3,500 troops to 'Attempt to Locate — Fugitives' and to conduct 'surveillance and canvassing missions,' as well as 'night operations and rural interdictions.' It also asks for support for ICE in 'joint task force operations for absconder/fugitive tracking,' according to the three sources familiar with the plans. NPR first reported the details of the DHS request. Democrats in Congress and military and law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the use of National Guard troops to perform what they say are civilian law enforcement duties. One characterized the plan as the Trump administration 'finding a way to get the National Guard into the streets and into American homes,' saying, 'I fear it's going to look like a police state.' A second source said, 'Trump has said he wants to use the National Guard for law enforcement, and the Pentagon and other entities have always said, 'Oh, don't worry, it will never come to that.' But this is it.' Defense officials say the request has not been approved and is being evaluated by Pentagon policy officials, the General Counsel's office, and other Pentagon leadership. The officials say the most likely course of action would be for some parts of the request to be approved and others rejected. But one source briefed on the plans said that Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth is close to approving some elements of the request and considering which state governors to approach first regarding National Guard units. 'We are so much closer to this being real,' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. DHS is requesting the National Guard troops under Title 32 status, which means they would remain on state active duty under the command of their governor but would be federally funded. Title 32 status generally allows National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars the use of federal troops in law enforcement operations. A National Guard member who opposes troops performing such tasks told NBC News, 'I plan to leave the National Guard soon over this.' The Pentagon is also being asked by DHS to pay the full cost of deploying the 21,000 National Guard troops. That comes amid growing tension between the Pentagon and DHS over the cost of border and other immigrant-related operations. The DHS request for National Guard troops arrives when the Pentagon is already footing a $23-million-a-month bill to hold as many as 2,500 undocumented immigrants in a military facility in Texas. Defense officials say they are frustrated that the camp is holding far fewer individuals than they were told to expect and they would like a reprieve. The Defense Department is in a contract with the DHS to help support DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officers who are under pressure from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. But it has been slow going for ICE agents, resulting in fewer arrests of undocumented immigrants across the country. That has resulted in many empty beds at facilities like the one in El Paso, owned and operated by the Defense Department. Military officials say the facility has been holding an average of 150 undocumented immigrants each day over the last several weeks — a fraction of its 2,500 beds. On one recent day, they said, the facility housed fewer than 80 people. Pentagon officials are asking to cut the number of beds in the facility from 2,500 to about 1,000, which they say would save $12 million per month. It is not clear if the DHS request for National Guard troops will increase the need for beds in the El Paso facility. The DHS request also comes as the Pentagon is struggling to fund critical projects to support U.S. troops. 'Congress is aware that the department is redirecting funds from existing military construction projects like barracks improvements for lower enlisted personnel and longstanding infrastructure projects elsewhere in the world in favor of southwest border missions,' a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News. 'They are pretty frustrated with the way that the department is ordering them to support DHS out of their own pockets for a grossly disproportionate cost compared to what ICE facilities would cost the government,' added the aide, referring to military officials. Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to transfer more than $1.74 million in the current DOD budget to the southwest border mission, as step that will take money away from renovating barracks and base facilities. Service member advocacy groups have criticized the move. Rob Evans, the founder of Hots&Cots, where services members can post reviews of barracks, dining areas and other facilities, says he sees evidence daily of barracks with sewage leaks, mold, failing HVAC systems, and more. 'When funding is pulled from this line, troops pay the price in real ways: delayed repairs, worsening conditions, and a growing sense that their well-being comes second to optics and operations,' Evans said. 'Service members deserve clean, safe, and dignified living conditions. They've earned at least that much.' This article was originally published on
31 minutes ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
Protesters confront authorities following ICE raids in Los Angeles
Federal immigration operations in Los Angeles were met by protests. ICE declined to discuss the details of its operations.
