Connecticut’s Trust Act, written and endorsed by left leaning legislators in the state’s General Assembly who do not trust ICE, has now been expanded by the state’s partisan legislature, according to the Hartford Courant.
The lede to the Courant story reads “With federal agents
arresting immigrants nationwide on a constant basis, Connecticut lawmakers
voted Wednesday to strengthen the current law to maintain the independence of
state and municipal police. The controversial Connecticut Trust Act blocks
local police from making an arrest that is based only on a request by federal
agents in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] agency.”
The controversial act is meant to serve as a barrier between
ICE and the police authority everywhere in Connecticut. What we are witnessing
here is a clash of mandates. The federal authority is mandated to detain, for
questioning or deportation, migrants who have illegally entered the country and
are for that reason of interest to ICE. The state’s Trust Act and its extension
prevents police authorities in the state from assisting ICE in detaining
illegal and unvetted migrants.
Democrat House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford noted during
the debate on the extension of the state's Trust Act, “We’re not impeding any
federal ability to come in and do what they have the right to do by law, but
we’re putting protections on it. Do I think people should be going into
courtrooms and grabbing people? No. That’s not fair to the judges. It’s not
fair to the individuals, the prosecutors, the jurors. That’s not what a
courthouse is for. When you walk down the courthouse steps, that’s a different
ballgame — and that’s federal law that governs that.”
Ritter’s “protections” are, of course, impediments. The very
purpose of the bill is to impede ICE’s lawful mandate.
State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, an East Hartford
Democrat, cautioned that his colleagues in the General Assembly should cease
referring to illegal migrants as illegal. “They are our neighbors,” said Rojas.
“Their children sit next to our children, right across the river in East
Hartford and Manchester... These people are humans. We should reject referring
to them as illegal. … There are legitimate concerns that have been raised about
crime … Immigrants commit crimes less frequently than the general population. I
would prefer that our federal government do their job and fix our broken
immigration system.”
Some would argue that the immigration system was broken
under the administration of President Joe Biden and quickly repaired under the
administration of President Donald Trump. Presently, illegal border crossings
are at the lowest level in modern memory. For all practical purposes, the hole
driven in the border bucket by Biden has been successfully patched, and the
last word on the subject may be Trump’s. He noted that people had been under
the misapprehension that the border crisis could only be answered by congressional
border reforms, but all it took in the end, he said, “was a different
president.”
Rojas has not told us what substitute term his colleagues
should use to distinguish properly between unvetted illegal migrants and
immigrants that have been admitted to the United States following legal
processing.
“Among the key issues of contention,” the Courant notes, “is
the bill [extending the state’s earlier Trust Act] would allow those arrested
to file civil lawsuits against municipalities for injunctive relief and
declaratory judgments. In addition, if they won their case, they would be
entitled to legal fees. Democrats strongly defended the expansion of the
current law, saying it would help those who have been wronged.”
An earlier story in the Courant – “Mexico national sentenced for smuggling
immigrants into CT, forcing them to work to pay off debt” – is
instructive.
According to the report, “A citizen of Mexico who has been
living in Hartford [Apolinar Francisco Paredes Espinoza] also known as
‘Pancho,’ was sentenced to 40 months in federal prison on Monday after
authorities said he illegally re-entered the country and was involved in a
scheme to illegally smuggle others across the border, forcing them to work and
pay thousands of dollars in debt… Federal officials said investigators have
identified 19 victims of the scheme, including multiple minors. At least two
minors were smuggled into the country without a relative or guardian,
authorities said…
“After being smuggled across the border and taken to
residences in the Hartford area, which reportedly included Sanchez’s and
Paredes’ residence on Madison Street [Ritter’s district], the victims were
allegedly told that they would have to pay about $30,000 with interest and that
they would have to pay Sanchez and her co-conspirators for rent, food, gas and
utilities, authorities said. Sanchez, Paredes, and their co-conspirators
reportedly created false documents for the victims, including permanent residence
cards and Social Security cards, and helped the victims find jobs in the
Hartford area, according to authorities... Federal officials said investigators
have identified 19 victims of the scheme, including multiple minors. At least
two minors were smuggled into the country without a relative or guardian,
authorities said.”
Apparently, the unlawful smuggling of illegal migrants into
the United States is a large and lucrative business. It’s doubtful that any
compassionate legislator in the state’s General Assembly would regard such
predatory activity as acceptable – even though the tormented and plundered
victims of illegal immigration were their friendly and inoffensive neighbors.
The problem with the Trust Act and its extension is not to
be found in the laudable intensions of its authors, but rather in the practical
consequences that follow the passage of the legislation. Legislators blind to the
predictable consequences of a Trust Bill that makes cooperation between federal
and local law enforcement agencies far less possible would be wise to confer
with the real victims of a permeable border.
Comments