Immigration enforcement hearing highlights lack of protocol for local, federal collaboration
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
12 minutes ago
Guatemala denies that Chilean green-card holder was deported from the United States
GUATEMALA CITY -- The Guatemalan government on Sunday denied that U.S. authorities deported a Chilean man to the Central American country. The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported Luis Leon, 82, a legal permanent resident of the United States who won asylum in 1987, ended up in Guatemala after being handcuffed in a Philadelphia immigration office, where he went to replace his lost green card. The news report relied on family accounts. The Morning Call reported Sunday that Leon was recovering from pneumonia in Guatemala and didn't plan to return to the United States, according to his granddaughter. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was looking into the circumstances, according to The Morning Call. ICE did not respond to questions from The Associated Press on Sunday. The Guatemalan Migration Institute said in a statement that it coordinates with ICE on all deportations from the United States and that no one matched Leon's name, age or citizenship. Guatemala agreed in February to receive people deported from the United States who are from other Central American countries. Its agreement does not extend to Chileans. The Trump administration has embraced deporting people to including El Salvador, South Sudan and, last week, the African kingdom of Eswatini.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Democrats are far more motivated than Republicans for next year's midterms, CNN poll finds
Source: CNN Democrats are far more energized than Republicans about participating in next year's midterms, but deeply negative perceptions of the Democratic Party and its officeholders raise questions about the party's ability to capitalize on that energy. Overall, 72% of Democrats and Democratic-aligned registered voters say they are extremely motivated to vote in next year's congressional election, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. That outpaces by 10 points deep motivation among the same group just weeks before the 2024 presidential election and stands 22 points above the share of Republican and Republican-leaning voters who feel the same way now. But just 28% of Americans view the Democratic Party favorably, the lowest mark for Democrats in the history of CNN's polling going back to 1992. Still, only 33% hold a favorable view of the Republican Party, which is the smallest share in CNN polling since just after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The poll suggests Democrats have a major opportunity next year – especially since midterms often favor the party out of power – but also a perception problem within their own ranks, particularly among younger voters. Among voters younger than 45 who align with the Democrats, just 52% say most Democratic members of Congress deserve reelection, and 48% say they do not. Older Democratic voters, by contrast, say these elected officials deserve another term by a wide margin, 76% to 24%. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say most of the Democratic Party's members of Congress do not deserve reelection and Democrats themselves are 7 points less likely than Republicans to believe members of Congress of their own party deserve reelection. Those historic lows on favorability are partly driven by Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents being less likely to have a favorable view of their own side (76% of Republican-aligned adults have a favorable view of the GOP, while just 58% on the Democratic side feel that way about their party). The American public largely agrees that full Republican control of the White House and Congress is bad for the country (57% feel that way), with negative views of both President Donald Trump and his party persistent since spring. Sixty percent say most GOP members of Congress do not deserve to be reelected. And the Democratic Party may hold an advantage among political independents. Nearly two-thirds of independents say full GOP control of the federal government is bad for the country, and slightly more independents say most Democratic members of Congress deserve reelection (38%) than say the same about most Republican members of Congress (33%). That gap grows to double digits among independent voters who are deeply motivated to vote next year (39% say most Democrats deserve reelection vs. 27% who say the same about most Republicans), though this is driven at least in part by the stronger motivation to vote among independents who lean Democratic. Trump won't be on the ballot in next year's election, but his presence is likely to loom large for both his supporters and opponents. While roughly 3 in 10 Americans call themselves Republicans, in a separate question, 37% of US adults say they're political supporters specifically of Trump. A smaller share has backed his commercial ventures: 11% have purchased the president's products or stayed in his hotels. That small group is particularly loyal: They are more motivated to vote than other Trump supporters (62% compared with 45% among Trump backers who haven't done so) and are more apt to say that Republican members of Congress largely deserve reelection (89% vs. 77%). The president's self-described supporters are demographically and politically similar regardless of whether they have spent money on a Trump-branded item or hotel stay. They are largely Republican, more male than female, mainly White, and less likely to have a college degree than those who do not consider themselves supporters. But having spent money on the Trump brand seems connected to a deeper political commitment to the president: 73% in that group say they strongly approve of his handling of the presidency, compared with 44% among those who say they support him politically but haven't purchased a product or stayed in one of his hotels. At the other end of the political spectrum, roughly a tenth of Americans say they've participated in some form of protest against Trump since his inauguration, with 8% saying they've shown up to a protest in person. With perceptions of both major parties broadly and persistently negative, Americans continue to express interest in a third political party. Overall, 63% say they would favor having a new third political party to run candidates against Republicans and Democrats for major offices. That's consistent with the appetite for a third party found in other recent public polls and about the same level of support for a third party found in CNN polling in early 2010. But interest dropped off significantly when voters were asked about the idea of a new party founded by Elon Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who has floated the 'America Party' amid his public falling-out with Trump. His idea for a third party has just 25% support, with 74% opposed. The poll finds impressions of Musk himself deeply negative – 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of him, while just 23% see him favorably. That's worsened since March, when he was a prominent part of Trump's efforts to slash spending and jobs in the federal government. That shift is almost entirely due to lost goodwill among the president's partisans: While 75% of Republicans had a positive view of him in March, that stands at just 42% now. His favorability ratings among Democrats and independents remain largely unchanged and deeply negative. Americans have long been receptive to the idea of a third party, but when specific ideas and agendas are attached to that new party, support tends to drop dramatically, and candidates from existing third parties rarely win meaningful support in American elections. In 2010, the Obama-era conservative movement known as the Tea Party sparked similar conversations about a third party spin-off from the GOP, as challengers from the right inspired by the Tea Party took on establishment Republicans leading in to that year's midterm elections. Later in 2010, though, only about half of Americans (48%) said they would favor the Tea Party movement becoming such a third party. The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from July 10-13 among a random national sample of 1,057 US adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among all adults have a margin of sampling error of ±3.5 percentage points. See Full Web Article
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
Guatemala denies that Chilean green-card holder was deported from the United States
GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — The Guatemalan government on Sunday denied that U.S. authorities deported a Chilean man to the Central American country. The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported Luis Leon, 82, a legal permanent resident of the United States who won asylum in 1987, ended up in Guatemala after being handcuffed in a Philadelphia immigration office, where he went to replace his lost green card. The news report relied on family accounts. The Morning Call reported Sunday that Leon was recovering from pneumonia in Guatemala and didn't plan to return to the United States, according to his granddaughter. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was looking into the circumstances, according to The Morning Call. ICE did not respond to questions from The Associated Press on Sunday. The Guatemalan Migration Institute said in a statement that it coordinates with ICE on all deportations from the United States and that no one matched Leon's name, age or citizenship. Guatemala agreed in February to receive people deported from the United States who are from other Central American countries. Its agreement does not extend to Chileans. The Trump administration has embraced deporting people to countries other than their own, including El Salvador, South Sudan and, last week, the African kingdom of Eswatini.
