Portland officials could soon expand limitations on cooperating with federal immigration enforcement to all city employees, following similar ordinances that have been implemented in Lewiston and Rockland.
The City Council is slated to take up the ordinance language April 13 after negotiating amendments with the city’s legal team and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, which has brought the language to multiple cities.
The draft language builds upon a state law that takes effect this summer that limits local law enforcement from collaborating with federal immigration authorities, but extends the limitations to all public employees, which the ACLU argues eliminates local liability in potentially unconstitutional action.
Michael Kebede, policy director for the ACLU of Maine, said the language approved in Rockland last year, and in Lewiston last month, offers “stronger protections” than those laid out in the state law.
He said the organization began advocating for the language in response to the federal government “violating the constitutional rights of people through immigration enforcement,” and that the ordinance eliminates the involvement of local officials in such actions.
In late January, ICE agents descended upon southern and central Maine during what the federal government dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” arresting some 200 people that authorities said were the “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.” Recent data from the Deportation Data Project said of those arrested, only 12 had criminal convictions.
A draft of the proposed language under consideration in Portland states that “no person acting in their capacity as a city employee shall assist or cooperate with, or allow any municipal monies or resources to be used to assist, cooperate with, or facilitate any federal agency in any immigration enforcement operation, except where legally required to do so by state or federal law or court order.”
Portland’s existing ordinance stipulates that local police and employees shall not inquire into the immigration status of any person, but does not include specific language relating to police cooperation with immigration enforcement. The police department’s standard operating procedure also outlines that officers do not check immigration status.
Leading up to and during January’s surge in Maine, officials in Portland repeatedly said the city does not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
However, text messages obtained by the Portland Press Herald last month showed that while local police departments said they do not contact or work collaboratively with immigration officials, they were in a group chat while federal agents were on the ground detaining more than 200 people.
Portland Police Chief Mark Dubois has said his officers’ behavior was in line with the department’s policy stipulating that local police stay out of federal enforcement action, but that local police continue to monitor public safety situations like protests or other emergency calls.
Following the release of the messages, some city councilors said they were concerned by the communications between local police and federal agents.
During a council meeting last month, Councilor Regina Phillips said councilors were “dismayed” by the messages, telling constituents that councilors were working on new language to strengthen the city’s ordinance.
While Councilor Pious Ali has been working directly with the ACLU on the proposal, Ali did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
It’s unclear whether the language councilors will ultimately vote on will be exactly what the ACLU and some councilors have advocated for.
City attorney Michael Goldman said he expects the final draft to look “substantially very similar” to the Lewiston and Rockland ordinances, but with some differences because it will add to and replace parts of an existing ordinance.
Kebede said the ACLU, councilors and city attorneys have been in a “back and forth” over the language since discussions began last month.
“I hope we can arrive at language that’s going to be adequately protective,” he said.
In Lewiston, the ordinance that passed is almost exactly what was proposed by the ACLU, but it did face some pushback from councilors and the police department. An initial amendment proposed was opposed by the ACLU and ultimately dropped in the final language.
While the council is scheduled to take the issue up first April 13 and then vote on April 27, Goldman said the council could decide to waive the second reading and pass the ordinance as an emergency on April 13, in which case it would become effective immediately.
If approved April 27, it would take effect 30 days later.