The administration of President Donald Trump is focusing on states and local governments that do not collaborate with federal immigration authorities. Lawmakers in various Democrat-led states are increasing their resistance by enacting laws that limit such cooperation.
In California alone, more than a dozen proposed bills successfully advanced through either Congress or the Senate this week.
Even as Trump’s administration attempts to safeguard immigrants in housing, employment, and police situations, arrests have intensified as part of a broader plan for mass deportations.
In Connecticut, law enforcement officials are looking to enhance an existing law that has been previously constrained by Democratic policies, allowing “aggrieved individuals” to sue local governments for alleged breaches of state trust laws.
Just two days after lawmakers granted final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security added Connecticut to its list of numerous “sanctuary jurisdictions” that allegedly obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws. After facing backlash, this list was later removed from the department’s website, as it mistakenly included several local governments that had historically supported Trump’s immigration initiatives.
The nation is divided on supporting or opposing Trump
Since his inauguration in January, Trump has mobilized hundreds of military personnel. State and local law enforcement agencies are aiding in the identification and detention of undocumented immigrants for potential deportation. Currently, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lists 640 such cooperative agreements, nearly five times the number prior to Trump’s presidency.
Additionally, Trump has rescinded long-standing regulations that restricted immigration enforcement near schools, churches, and hospitals. Furthermore, federal prosecutors are investigating state and local officials believed to be obstructing his crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against Colorado, Illinois, New York, and various jurisdictions within those states, including New Jersey, claiming that their policies breach the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws.
Three weeks after Colorado was subjected to a lawsuit, Democratic Governor Jared Polis enacted a broad range of laws enhancing state protections for immigrants. This legislation prohibits prisons from delaying inmate releases for immigration enforcement and imposes fines of up to $50,000 on public schools, universities, libraries, childcare centers, and medical facilities for collecting immigration status information, with certain exceptions.
Polis has dismissed the Colorado administration’s characterization of the state as a “sanctuary state,” asserting that his administration is “deeply committed” to collaborating with federal authorities on criminal investigations.
“However, it is imperative to clarify that state and local law enforcement agencies cannot enforce federal civil immigration laws,” Polis stated in his bill signing remarks.
Illinois persists in promoting pro-immigrant legislation. The recently approved bill affirms that access to free public education shall not be denied based on immigration status, something already guaranteed at the national level by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1982. Advocates maintain that these state laws serve as a safeguard should court precedents be overturned.
The bill also mandates that schools formulate policies for handling inquiries from federal immigration officials and opens the door for lawsuits over alleged violations.
A variety of laws supporting immigration are emerging
A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. A new Washington law designates bail bond agents as professionals forbidden from enforcing immigration warrants and prohibits employers from threatening workers based on their immigration status, as well as allowing paid sick leave for immigration-related legal matters.
Last month, Vermont repealed a law that permitted law enforcement agencies to engage in immigration enforcement collaborations with federal authorities during state or national emergencies, now requiring special permission from the governor.
While advancing through the House, Maryland legislation aimed to prohibit local governments from entering into immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. However, this provision was stripped in the Senate after opposition from several counties in Maryland that were already engaged in such agreements.
The final legislation, which took effect at the start of June, restricts public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration officials access to non-public areas without a judicial warrant or in “urgent situations.”
Maryland Delegate Nicole Williams noted that community concerns over Trump’s immigration policies motivated her sponsorship of the law.
“We believe that our diversity is our strength, and as elected officials, our duty is to ensure that everyone in our community feels safe and welcomed, regardless of their background,” Williams stated.
Many new measures reinforce existing protections
Though legislation being passed in Democrat-led states may contest Trump’s policies, “I believe the primary intent is to send a message to the immigrant community, letting them know they are welcome,” commented Juan Aviles, policy associate for the nonprofit advocacy group, the U.S. Immigration Council.
California has mandated that public schools adopt policies that “limit assistance in immigration enforcement to the greatest extent feasible.” Some educational institutions have effectively implemented this law; for instance, when DHS officers attempted to conduct welfare checks on immigrant children at two elementary schools in Los Angeles in April, both principals refused them entry.
The law passed by state senators aims to bolster such policies by explicitly requiring a judicial warrant for immigration authorities to enter non-public areas in public schools, as well as questioning or disclosing information regarding students and their families.
“The presence of ICE in our schools means some parents are too afraid to send their children to school at all,” said Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat, in support of the bill.
Conversely, some Republicans have criticized the measure as an attempt to “inject partisan immigration policies” into educational institutions.
“We haven’t seen evidence of fear among students in California leading to disruption in schools,” remarked Senator Marie Alvarado Gill. “It’s time to put an end to these fear-mongering tactics.”
___
This report includes contributions from Associated Press authors Susan Hay, Tran Nuguin, Jesse Bedain, John O’Connor, and Brian Witte.
Source: apnews.com