Advocates urge Maine lawmakers to bar police cooperation with ICE

Yahoo

19-05-2025

May 19—Immigrants rights advocates urged Maine lawmakers Monday to restrict the ability of police departments to work with federal immigration authorities.
One proposal before the Legislature would prohibit agencies or officers from entering into contracts to partner with federal immigration authorities. A second would prohibit police from stopping, arresting or detaining a person solely for immigration enforcement reasons.
The proposals come as the Department of Homeland Security is working to expand the number of partnership contracts with local law enforcement agencies nationwide in order to carry out the mass deportations President Donald Trump promised throughout his campaign.
Wells is currently the only municipality in Maine participating in the 287(g) Program, according to an ICE database, and the southern Maine town has faced pushback for agreeing to help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Lawmakers on Monday held a public hearing on LD 1259, from Rep. Ambureen Rana, D-Bangor, which would prevent state and local agencies from entering into 287(g) Program agreements like the one Wells has.
"I am very concerned by the recent push to encourage local law enforcement agencies to enter into 287(g) with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)," Pamela Proulx-Curry, executive director of the Maine MultiCultural Center in Brewer, said in written testimony supporting LD 1259. "Such agreements make our communities more unsafe, not less."
Six states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington — have laws or policies that prohibit such agreements, according to ICE.
On the other hand, a number of states, such as Georgia and Florida, have passed or are considering legislation requiring law enforcement to seek out or enter into partnerships with ICE under the 287(g) program.
Proulx-Curry said the program turns routine encounters with police into opportunities for deportation, creating fear among immigrants and making them less likely to contact police if they witness or are a victim of a crime.
"When people don't trust police, they're less likely to report domestic violence, fraud or unsafe working conditions — issues that affect everyone in a community, not just immigrants," she wrote.
The Greater Bangor Area Branch NAACP also submitted testimony in support of the bill, testifying that if state and local law enforcement coordinate with immigration authorities it would have a "chilling effect" on immigrant communities and could drain local resources.
"As has been documented nationally and within Maine, ICE and (Customs and Border Protection) have been especially targeting communities of color in their actions," wrote branch President Athena Bryce. "This is a civil rights concern for all the people in Maine."
The Maine County Commissioners Association, which represents county governments across the state, submitted testimony opposing the bill, saying public safety is a local issue and that local governments should have the flexibility to enter into agreements and partnerships they believe are best for their communities.
The bill could also jeopardize federal funds that county jails receive for detaining individuals who are believed to have violated federal law, including immigration laws, according to written testimony from the commission.
"If a local law enforcement agency is asked to engage in behavior that is not consistent with the law, whether related to immigration or some other activity, those local agencies already have in place the tools and responsibility to refuse such requests," wrote Stephen Gordon and Jean-Marie Caterina, co-chairs of the association's Legislative Policy Committee. "A blanket state law forbidding cooperation would be unwise, and unwarranted."
Rana said the agreements are not needed for local law enforcement to be able to do their jobs or for immigration officials to do their jobs in Maine. She also said the agreements are detrimental to taxpayers.
"The bottom line is, a 287(g) agreement requires that we are using our local taxpayer money to do the job of federal immigration enforcement," she said. "Our resources are already limited, both at the state level and at municipalities ... and we should be using our local taxpayer money to care for our residents."
Michael Kebede, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, cited several examples of communities from other states that have had to raise property taxes or draw from rainy day funds to implement multi-million dollar 287(g) programs, in testimony Monday.
But Ken Mason, sheriff of Kennebec County and chair of the Maine Sheriffs Association Legislative Policy Committee, said members of the sheriffs association are in unanimous opposition to LD 1259.
"As sheriffs, we cannot and should not be forced to pick and choose which state and federal laws to enforce," Mason said.
Asked about the financial impact, Mason said his agency and others around the state participate in a federal grant program called Operation Stonegarden that is focused on border security and that has been financially beneficial, helping them buy equipment and pay for additional work.
He said he couldn't say for sure if that program would be affected by LD 1259. "It's not specific to immigration," he said. "It's just 'Do your regular thing.'"
A second bill, LD 1971, from Rep. Deqa Dhalac, D-South Portland, would prohibit law enforcement from stopping, arresting or detaining a person solely for immigration enforcement reasons. It would also require inmates to be informed of their rights prior to being interviewed by immigration authorities, and it would prohibit law enforcement from determining an inmate's custody status based on their immigration status.
"(This bill) ensures that local and state law enforcement agencies can focus on their primary mission, which is safeguarding our communities and upholding state law," Dhalac said.
Rana said she sees the two bills as complementary.
"I do believe the bills work hand-in-hand," she said. "They don't compete. I do believe they address different issues and need to be implemented hand-in-hand to offer the most protections in our state."
Copy the Story Link