Eastport Maine  The Quoddy Tides newspaper
Find more about Weather in Eastport, ME
April 28, 2017
 Home
 Subscribe
 Links
 Classifieds
 Contact
 
 

 

 

 

 

Immigration enforcement bills draw fire from diverse groups
by
Lora Whelan

 

     Three bills sponsored by Rep. Lawrence Lockman of Amherst about immigration and the intersection of local and federal law enforcement were rolled into one public hearing held by the legislature's Judiciary Committee on April 20 because of the large number of people present to testify. As it turned out, most were there to testify against the bills. LD 366 garnered the most attention, with 116 people or organizations filing testimony in opposition  and 13 in support.
     Lockman represents District 137, which includes a few communities in Washington County. His three bills are: LD 366, An Act To Ensure Compliance with Federal Immigration Law by State and Local Government Entities; LD 847, An Act To Hold Refugee Resettlement Agencies Accountable to Maine People; and LD 1099, Resolve, To Require the State To Bring Suit against the Federal Government for Failure To Comply with the Federal Refugee Act of 1980.
     The committee held a subsequent workshop on April 26 and voted to table action on LD 366 for an additional workshop. The majority gave an ought‑not‑to‑pass recommendation for LD 847, but because there was a minority vote in favor the bill will be sent to the legislature as a divided report. LD 1099 was voted unanimously ought‑not‑to‑pass, but a few committee members were not in attendance so it may not have been killed.
In his testimony, Lockman describes LD 366 as requiring "all municipalities in Maine to comply with federal immigration law, and it would prohibit policies that forbid police officers from initiating an inquiry into anyone's immigration status. Towns and cities that continue to defy federal immigration law by harboring illegal immigrants would lose all state funding, including state aid to education and revenue sharing. Citizens who are harmed by the criminal activity of illegal aliens would have legal recourse to sue politicians who enable such policies."

Wide range of opposing testimonies
     The legislation drew the attention of the Maine Education Association. In his testimony in opposition, Executive Director Rob Walker wrote that school districts and their employees would be "scooped up in this overly broad legislation." He explained, "Education employees of a school district, especially teachers, do not want to be default law enforcement agents." The Maine Human Rights Commission also noted that the bill would make every state agency and employee "responsible for complying with and supporting enforcement of federal immigration law." In the case of the commission, it is bound by confidentiality conditions prior to the conclusion of an investigation, thus placing it in the position of having to violate either LD 366 or the Maine Human Rights Act.
      Penelope Morrell, state director for the national organization Concerned Women for America of Maine, wrote, "Our stand for years has been that we should enforce the law and we should secure our borders. This legislation helps to move us forward on at least one of those points." However, John Hennessy, director of the Maine Episcopal Network of Justice, noted that Maine had a "long tradition of welcoming the stranger" into factories, blueberry barrens, and "increasingly, as our population continues to age, to care for our elderly." He said, "LD 366 prevents our newest neighbors from enjoying freedom from fear and freedom to pursue a new life with sanctioned legal status -- in the case of refugees -- or embark on a path to legal status -- in the case of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers."
     Many of the testimonies submitted from residents around the state echoed Hennessy's words of a welcoming culture, but also of the need for policy makers to recognize and work to find ways to bring more immigrants to the state in the face of its aging population and lack of a younger workforce in the future. In addition, immigrants of legal status and children born in other countries who were adopted into American families spoke of the fears they had of how LD 366 could change the state's culture.
     The Maine Sheriffs' Association testified that its members voted unanimously to oppose the bill. "Immigration law is significantly different than state laws. ... We are not trained on immigration law. County law enforcement has no authority to investigate. Many of the immigration infractions are administrative, and if we were to incarcerate on one of those infractions, we would be violating constitutional rights." In addition, the association pointed out that state jails, with inmates managed by sheriff's departments that are struggling with low funding levels, do "not have the capacity to take on this added burden." Sheriff Kevin Joyce, representing the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, said, "Having been in local law enforcement for nearly 30 years, I can say with great confidence that local law enforcement agencies do not have the time, the training, nor the resources to pursue this course of law enforcement that is already being fulfilled by the federal government ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents."
The Maine Municipal Association (MMA) stated that the bill gave rise to "two serious municipal objections." The requirement to "fully comply with and to the full extent permitted by law support the enforcement of federal immigration law" is unclear in what is required. Federal law, MMA representative Garrett Corbin said, does not require local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law because of the lack of capacity in training and other resources.
     In addition, the MMA objected to the legislation's "impractical and likely illegal method of enforcement" because LD 366 would create a process through the attorney general that would cause a municipality to be immediately ineligible to receive funds remitted to it by the state. "The legal issue is one of procedural due process" that would create a non‑appealable extrajudicial opinion, the only one of its kind in the state. "The conceptual issue pertains to the linking of all state funding to federal immigration compliance. Why should state aid to education be compromised by a discrepancy between federal and local law enforcement?"

Turning home rule on its head
     In favor of the legislation was Jonathan Hanen of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit located in Washington, D.C., who stated, "Not to share information with federal immigration law and comply with ICE detainers is legally legitimate -- as opposed to wise, good or just -- because our federal system guarantees that states cannot be forced to implement a program of the federal government at their own expense."
     However, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills did not find it wise, good or just, stating, "It turns home rule, a principle enshrined in our representative democracy, on its head. ... It says that a government entity 'may not consider an individual's race, color or national origin,' while allowing such considerations by a federal entity seeking cooperation and dictating actions by state and local officials which might be based on those same unlawful criteria. Most tellingly, it omits the protections of religious freedom, one of the backbones of our democracy."
     Marco Aviles, a Latino interpreter originally from Peru who works in Lewiston, noted that his Maine‑born wife has never had her status questioned when the couple visits Peru. "The experience is different for me in this country" because of the color of his skin. "I feel vulnerable for the children that I will have. If they are brown, will people ask them about their immigration status? Will they need to carry their IDs in order to feel safe every time they interact with an officer?" He added that his white European immigrant friends in Maine do not feel as he does. "They are not asked where they came from. They are not asked, 'Are you legal?'"
     Pastor Allen Ewing‑Merrill of the United Methodist Church HopeGateWay in Portland said, "Although it feels more comfortable to distance ourselves from those who are 'from away,' who may look different, or speak a different language, or have a different cultural heritage or religious understanding, when we're honest we have to acknowledge that there is no 'us and them.'" He urged the judicial committee to understand the nuances of immigration. Asylum seekers, he explained, while allowed to be in the country for up to a year to apply for asylum, are often on visas that expire in six or less months. They can be "in limbo" for months and even years while they're waiting for their asylum applications that are pending.
     Urging the committee to support the bill was Belgrade resident Gayle Finkbeiner. Speaking of communities that oppose the use of local police to enforce federal ICE laws and referring to them as "sanctuary" cities, he called the bill "sensible and moderate" in its ability "to bring a halt to this lawless and dangerous project of demographic, cultural and political transformation of Maine without the electoral consent of Maine people."

April 28, 2017   (Home)     

.

Google
www The Quoddy Tides article search