Following concern with how Federal authorities are now enforcing immigration law, South Portland Representative Deqa Dhalac introduced LD 1971, An Act to Protect Workers in This State by Clarifying the Relationship of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies with Federal Immigration Authorities.
According to the bill’s summery, LD 1971…
1. Prohibits a law enforcement agency from stopping, investigating, interrogating,arresting or detaining a person for immigration enforcement purposes, including in response to a hold request, immigration detainer or administrative warrant issued by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or allowing the United States Department of Homeland Security access to inmates or inmate information or providing law enforcement agency resources or personnel to assist immigration enforcement activities.
2. Clarifies that a law enforcement agency upon a request from the United States Department of Homeland Security may arrest and detain a person and perform other law enforcement duties due to suspected criminal activity or other reasons not solely based on the person’s immigration status.
3. Establishes the permissible scope of collaboration of a law enforcement agency with a joint law enforcement task force.
4. Requires a law enforcement agency to release as soon as possible and detain no longer than 48 hours a person determined to be held solely for immigration enforcement purposes.
5. Establishes duties and prohibitions for law enforcement agencies regarding immigration issues of inmates, including requiring the agency to inform an inmate of the inmate’s rights prior to interview by an immigration authority and whether the agency intends to comply with a hold request and prohibiting an agency from restricting access to educational programming and good conduct credits or determining an inmate’s custodial status based upon the inmate’s immigration status.
6. Prohibits state employees other than law enforcement officers from inquiring into immigration status unless the inquiry is required by law or necessary to provide the service sought by the resident.
Sent to the Committee on Judiciary on May 13th, LD 1971 had its public hearing on May 19th. Over 250 testimonies were submitted with most showing support of the measure. Those opposed to the measure included the Maine Department of Public Safety/Maine State Police, the Maine Chief of Police Association (MCPA)
Both considered the language too broad and that millions of dollars in federal funds could be lost.
The Maine Department of Public Safety/Maine State Police pointed out that LD 1971 would provide protections beyond standard due process, something no other crime receives. The MCPA argued that whether or not Maine’s law enforcement should enter agreements with federal authorities should be a local decision made with the communities they serve, not through blanket legislation.
The Maine County Commissioners Association (MCCA), which advocates for Maine’s 16 county governments, also testified against the bill. The MCCA explained that federal agencies regularly request county jails detain people they believe have broken federal laws. The counties receive compensation for holding these individuals that help offset tax payer costs for maintaining their county jail.
Representative Scott Cyrway (District 16), whom also testified in opposition to LD 1971, argued that when ICE works with local law enforcement, it means they’re not going into a community themselves and using less discretion than police familiar with the community would. Sen. Cyrway insisted that cooperation promotes a more controlled environment for arrests to occur.
The ACLU of Maine was among those in support of LD 1971. ACLU of Maine director, Michael Kebede, argued that the 287(g) Program results in local resources spent enforcing federal immigration law. Kebede provided examples of the 287(g) Program negatively effecting other states, however the testimony did not include any examples within Maine specifically. According to the 287(g) Program Info Sheet, there is at least one Maine community participating.
Kebede also explained that if undocumented immigrants believe local police will report them to Immigration, would result in this population not reporting serious crimes or stepping forward with information for investigators.
The testimony from MECASA, which represents Maine’s sexual violence prevention and response programs and Maine’s Children’s Advocacy Centers, reiterated that position. They argued that…
“Immigrants are particularly at risk of sexual assault because of, among other things, their lack of familiarity with their legal rights, misinformation they may have about the U.S. legal system, lack of access to service providers, and language barrier issues.
If the barriers are high enough, some survivors will simply choose not to report….This is particularly pressing for minors. Immigrant girls are twice as likely as U.S.-born girls to have suffered sexual assault by the time they reach high school.”
Another opinion in support of LD 1971 came from Ruben Torres from the Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition (MIRC). Torres also spoke to the point of immigrants trusting law enforcement as well as the potential of local law enforcement being held responsible when people are unlawfully detained at the direction of ICE.
The Committee of the Judiciary will be holding its fourth work session for LD 1971 on June 9th.
–TMP