They argue that only the governor, in consultation with the state attorney general, should have the ability to strike agreements that would provide federal agents with local help to find, arrest and detain immigrants.
The idea that individual sheriffs or police chiefs could “strike out on their own” and decide to collaborate with U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement is deeply concerning to many lawmakers, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden Central) said this week during debate of the bill.
“As a committee, we thought that was dangerous, and we would prefer to have that power centralized in the governor’s office,” Baruth said.
The bill, S.44, appears headed for passage. Authored by Sen. Nader Hashim (D-Windham), it enjoyed strong support from Baruth’s Judiciary Committee and overwhelming support Thursday on the Senate floor. The vote was 29-1 in favor.
The lone no vote came from Sen. Robert Norris (R-Franklin), a former sheriff. He said he was fine with the goal of the bill but objected to last-minute language changes whose impact he didn’t understand.
The governor has already had the power, after consultation with the attorney general, to approve deals between local and federal law enforcement agencies since 2017.
But the state law includes an exception that allows any “state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency” to enter into an agreement to work with federal immigration officials when “necessary to address threats to the public safety or welfare of Vermont residents arising out of a declaration of a State or national emergency.”
Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border on January 20. Some lawmakers worry that if he did the same on the northern border, individual law enforcement agencies could use the provision to bypass the governor and decide on their own to work directly with federal immigration officials.
Given that Trump has shown “a predilection for declaring emergencies to empower himself,” Baruth said, lawmakers felt it would be wise to eliminate the emergency clause in state law and give that power solely to the governor.
“All we’re doing is saying in all circumstances, the governor needs to sign off,” Baruth said during a recent committee meeting on the bill.
Originally, lawmakers wanted to require the governor to get legislative approval for such deals, but the idea didn’t go far. Scott viewed it as stepping on his authority as the state’s chief executive, and lawmakers quickly backed down, concerned the requirement might be unconstitutional.
The result: A bill that originally sought to limit the governor’s power would now increase it.
Law enforcement agencies are not opposed to the change, according to Windham County Sheriff Mark Anderson, who serves as president of the Vermont Sheriffs Association. Law enforcement officers in Vermont are trained to treat law-abiding residents the same, regardless of their immigration status. That policy already limits how local officers could collaborate with federal immigration officials, Anderson said.
In addition, law enforcement agencies are stretched thin, meaning they would be highly unlikely to want to work with immigration officials on enforcement cases, Anderson said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont supports the narrower bill as a “first step,” according to Falko Schilling, the group’s advocacy director.
“As Vermonters are rightfully concerned about how their state resources might be used for federal immigration enforcement, this at least creates some accountability,” he said. The message being sent by the bill is that civil immigration enforcement is not something that the state will use its limited resources to support.
Schilling said he hopes the House could have “a robust conversation” about whether protections can be extended beyond immigration enforcement to cover information federal officials might seek from state agencies, such as people receiving gender-affirming care.