Latest news with #LD1656
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposed ban on ICE agreements pushed to next year as lawmakers consider other restrictions
An ICE officer coordinates with other officials during an enforcement operation in San Antonio, Texas on Feb. 5, 2025. (Photo via U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) The Judiciary Committee pushed off deciding on whether to ban local law enforcement agreements with federal immigration authorities until next year. But the majority of its members voted against a conflicting proposal that would make it illegal to restrict compliance with immigration enforcement. These decisions were made on Wednesday as members ran back and forth between the committee room and their respective chambers amid a busy session day. The committee decided to carry over into next year LD 1259, which would explicitly prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from entering into contracts with federal immigration enforcement authorities. On the other hand, a motion to pass LD 1656, which would prevent local agencies from adopting any policies that restrict them from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law, failed 4-8, with two members absent. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Michael Soboleski of Phillips and co-sponsored by nine other Republicans. However, the committee has yet to decide on LD 1971, which would place restrictions on enforcement activities absent formal agreements with federal authorities. The committee did discuss an amendment to clarify what would and would not be permitted under the bill as a means to address pushback from police groups. Auburn Police Chief Jason Moen, who is president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, raised concerns about the bill hindering federal task forces that are not primarily for immigration enforcement but sometimes touch on some immigration issues, such as drug enforcement partnerships. Moen said the proposed changes assuage those concerns 'to some extent.' Another work session on LD 1971 is scheduled for Monday. Immigration enforcement hearing highlights lack of protocol for local, federal collaboration Rep. Ambureen Rana (D-Bangor), who sponsored LD 1259, requested that the bill be carried over to next year, telling her colleagues Wednesday that she believes it is necessary but would benefit from more time to allow for greater community engagement and to study its implications before lawmakers vote. Participation in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287(g) program has grown across the country after 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. The program was discontinued in 2012 due to the discovery of discriminatory practices such as racial profiling. Wells Police Department is the only Maine agency that has opted to join. However, Wells paused its agreement to see if the Legislature votes to ban such contracts. 'Some law enforcement officials expressed concerns about the bill's unintended impacts, which I take seriously,' Rana told Maine Morning Star after the vote. Noting that six states have laws or policies that prohibit participation, Rana said, 'Additional time in our legislative process allows us to study the impacts in those states while individual communities continue to advocate for municipalities that stand for the safety of all residents.' Wells residents have been voicing both support and opposition to their local police force contracting with ICE at Select Board meetings. Those calling for the police force to terminate the contract have collected more than 350 signatures. Monmouth Winthrop Police Department, a combination of departments that serve central Maine communities, also initially submitted an application to join the program but withdrew it after community pushback, with their Police Chief Paul Ferland citing the division it caused in the community as the main reason. 'Carrying the bill over keeps it alive while we continue to build support across the state,' Rana said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
GOP lawmakers want to make it illegal to restrict compliance with immigration enforcement
An ICE officer coordinates with other officials during an enforcement operation in San Antonio, Texas on Feb. 5, 2025. (Photo via U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Republican legislators are attempting to prevent local and state government and law enforcement agencies from adopting policies that would restrict them from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law. When Rep. Michael Soboleski of Phillips presented LD 1656, which is co-sponsored by nine other Republicans, to the Judiciary Committee on Friday, he described the measure as sending 'a clear message that Maine values the safety of its citizens and the partnerships that make that safety possible.' Those opposed to the bill argued it would subvert the balance of powers between federal and state governments and run afoul of existing state laws and the U.S. Constitution. If passed, government and law enforcement entities would not be able to 'adopt or maintain a law, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, practice or procedure, formal or informal, written or unwritten' that prohibits or 'materially restricts' the entity from complying with or assisting in the enforcement of immigration law. First Maine police department joins ICE partnership Immigration law is defined in the bill as both state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration, including but not limited to the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. Among the prohibited restrictions listed in the bill are preventing participation in any program authorized under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287(g) program. The Wells Police Department in York County is the only department in Maine so far to enter into an agreement for that program, which allows its officers to arrest people on immigration violations in the course of routine work, an authority previously reserved for federal agents. Some in the community are calling for the contract to be terminated. While the Monmouth Winthrop Police Department, a combination of departments that serve central Maine communities, had also initially applied, the department withdrew its application due to community pushback. This restriction in LD 1656 appears to be in direct conflict with another bill, LD 1259, proposed by Democrats to prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from entering into contracts with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Soboleski said inconsistent policies regarding the sharing and use of information can undermine the overarching goal of enforcing the rule of law, as an example pointing to the benefits of cooperation between state and federal agencies in combating drug trafficking along the border. Alicia Rea, policy fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, said undermining state and local governments' power to exercise discretion about law enforcement priorities in their communities would undermine the 10th Amendment, which enshrined the principle of federalism. Rea also argued the bill could lead to violations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th Amendment, which addresses due process, by exposing state and local agencies to expensive litigation and potential civil liability. Community members request Wells Police terminate contract with ICE Beyond official partnerships, LD 1656 would prevent state and local government and law enforcement from generally refusing to assist with immigration enforcement, preventing federal immigration officers from conducting enforcement activities in local jails and sharing information about a person's immigration status. Those entities also couldn't refuse to cooperate with an immigration detainer, defined in the bill as a 'facially sufficient' request from a federal immigration agency. Facially sufficient, according to the bill, means either a completed, official form that indicates on its face that the agency has probable cause to believe a person is a 'a removable alien' under federal immigration law, or an incomplete form that does not indicate probable cause but is supported by an administrative warrant that does. Unlike judicial warrants issued by a court, an administrative warrant is issued by a federal agency and does not permit authorities to enter a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without consent. The top concern among Wells residents calling for the termination of the ICE contract is entangling their local police with the agency's recent illegitimate enforcement. Rea pointed out to the committee on Friday that, according to ICE's own records, the agency's enforcement has not always been exact. For example, between 2008 and 2012, the agency issued detainers against 834 U.S. citizens and 28,489 legal permanent residents, or 'green card' holders. LD 1656 would also establish a complaint process for members of the public to report any government or law enforcement entity to the state Attorney General for violating the restrictions set out in the legislation. If the Attorney General determines an entity is in violation, the officer would be required to issue an opinion and the entity would then have 30 days to appeal. If the Superior Court agrees with the Attorney General, it must issue an injunction and the entity would face a $500 daily fine for each day its practice remains in effect. The only person to testify in support of the bill on Friday, former Republican state representative Lawrence Lockman from Bradley, urged the committee to increase that penalty to $10,000 per day. While not opining on the immigration policy behind the bill, Julie Finn, analyst for Maine's Judicial Branch, said the branch opposes the bill because of what she characterized as the problematic legal process it proposes. It lacks an adjudicatory process, which would involve a neutral third party, Finn said. The Attorney General can only issue opinions on a question of law not on a question of fact, and only final agency action is generally appealable. Finn also raised concern about the bill's ambiguity as to whether judicial marshals are included in the definition of law enforcement agency. She requested these positions be excluded, as their primary purpose is to provide protection and security for judicial branch employees and members of the public in a courthouse, not to investigate, apprehend people or enforce criminal violations. Immigration arrests in courthouses elsewhere in the country have led to growing concern that the work of local justice systems is being undermined by making immigrants fearful of coming to court. On Friday in Wisconsin, FBI agents arrested a Milwaukee County Judge, accusing her of obstructing an immigration enforcement action. The co-sponsors of LD 1656 are Sens. Scott Cyrway and Dick Bradstreet, both representing parts of Kennebec County, and Reps. Richard Campbell of Orrington, Abigail Griffin of Levant, Gary Drinkwater of Milford, James Thorne of Carmel, Jeffrey Sean Adams of Lebanon, Katrina Smith of Palermo and Reagan Paul of Winterport. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
