On May 27, Connecticut lawmakers approved changes to the state’s Trust Act, a law that controls how local officials interact with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The legislation, originally passed in 2019, mostly banned police from holding people just because ICE asked, unless ICE had a judicial warrant or the person had committed serious crimes.
Now, with the new updates, the immigration law has been strengthened.
Specifically, the updated law has two key parts:
First, individuals will now be allowed to sue towns or cities if local police help ICE in ways that violate state law, and they could also get their legal fees covered if they win.
Secondly, local officials will now be allowed to hold people for ICE if they’ve been convicted of more crimes, such as sexual assault, child endangerment, or having child sexual abuse material, not just the most serious felonies like murder or robbery.
Thirteen more crimes have been added where local police can comply with ICE requests. The law also expands the number of those who count as law enforcement officials (like parole board members and prosecutors).
Some advocates supported the bill as a step forward for immigrant rights, but others were disappointed that more crimes were not added to the list and that ICE detentions at courthouses weren’t banned.
Republican State Senator Rob Sampson was one of the bill’s strongest critics.
In the House session on May 28, he said, “We don't have the power to make federal policy to allow people to come to our state and become lawful citizens. The only policies that this legislature can come up with are things like this, like the Trust Act, which you might call a ‘band aid’. But it's not even that, because frankly, it's a mess. The result of the Trust Act over time has been to treat people who are otherwise lawful, whose only crime is entering the country unlawfully, versus people who are actual criminals who commit crimes and harm people. And that distinction is lost, in my view.”
“It's also an incredibly bad message to send to people that ‘if you come to Connecticut, we're going to ignore our country's laws in certain circumstances.’ What kind of message is that to send? And today we're offering more and more things – an invitation to come to the state of Connecticut, to choose us. Big flashing neon sign: ‘If you're undocumented, you are welcome in Connecticut.’ And the problem with that is that it is a drain on our state's economy,” Sampson continued.
He remarked that immigration is a national issue that impacts all 50 states and how the U.S. is seen around the world, so the federal government—and the people elected to Congress—should make and adjust those policies.
“We should simply encourage our federal delegation to act in the best interests of the state of Connecticut, and we should stay in our lane.”
Sampson defined Connecticut as a “super sanctuary state,” explaining, " With this law, we actually have the most extreme sanctuary policy in the whole country, even more than California. That's why I coined that term in 2019, super sanctuary state, because I wanted to point out to everyone that we're not just like everyone else. Our sanctuary state policy is actually way more aggressive.”
He recognized that there are a lot of fine people whose only crime is entering the country unlawfully, but there are also some pretty bad criminals, which is the main reason why he doesn’t support the immigration law.
“My issue is not with people who are here undocumented. My issue is with criminals. This policy doesn't just protect otherwise lawful undocumented people. It protects criminals. When you create an environment that benefits the criminal element, of course, they're going to flock to your jurisdiction, and ultimately, crimes occur, murders occur, and people lose their lives.”
On the other hand, among the supporters of the bill was State Senator Gary Winfield, who responded to Sampson’s claims.
“There's a prison for people who've committed crimes. Immigration policy is a different thing,” Winfield said. “We come up and we say, ‘you support the people who are doing these things.’ No, we put them in prison. That's what we do. We put them in prison because they've committed a crime in the state of Connecticut. And the state of Connecticut says ‘for that action, you go to prison as you should.’”
“What we are debating here is the point at which we should think about helping to deport people when there's not a warrant in place. And there's a difference of opinion, but that does not mean that what you are trying to do here is to help criminals do criminal acts.”
The bill passed the Senate 25-11 and is now headed to Gov. Ned Lamont for final approval.
