Judiciary Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Judiciary Committee

REASONS FOR BILL:

The bill, also known as the Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act, is in response to the federal Secure Communities program. The bill would prohibit law enforcement officers from giving effect to a civil immigration detainer by holding an individual beyond the time when such individual would otherwise be released from the department's custody and from otherwise expending time or resources to facilitate the individuals transfer to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Office of Chief Public Defender, Testimony Submitted by Deborah Del Prete Sullivan: Supports the bill. Passage of the bill would be a step forward in creating a process that would provide consistency in how civil immigration detainers are handled in this state. The Office adopts and endorses the testimony as submitted by the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (below).

Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane, in his Oral Testimony Before the Committee: Concerned about the bill. If there is a civil detainer and the subject of that detainer was due to be released by the police department or a custodial institution, the bill would prohibit the department from calling the Department of Immigration, which, in Attorney Kane's opinion, goes too far. Immigration is really a product of the federal government. If the state will enact laws that prohibit state agencies from disclosing to the holder of that detainer who has lodged is then the statute would go too far in some areas and ought to be looked at. Passing a statute that prohibits even notifying somebody that the subject of a civil detainer is about to be released is problematic. Time limits may be good and some of the other provisions seem reasonable but that [notification prohibition] is a concern.

Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission (APAAC), Testimony Submitted by Executive Director Mui Mui Hin-McCormick: Supports the bill. The bill is another important step towards rolling back the entanglement between local law enforcement and civil immigration that is destroying communities. Collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE is bad public policy. This legislation is another expression of Connecticut's condemnation of the federal government's mass deportation programs. The DOC already has protocols in place that have proven very effective but they do not reach all law enforcement. This bill is an expansion of an already existing policy. The bill will also set a standard that brings participation in S-Comm back in line with the program's original goals or targeting individuals with violent convictions and will also minimize the effect that senseless deportations have on communities. Finally, several jurisdictions have passed or proposed similar legislation to remedy the detrimental effects of their state's participation in S-Comm, including California, Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, Washington, and New York City.

Judicial Branch External Affairs Division, Testimony Submitted by Deborah J. Fuller: Concerned that the requirements of the bill directly conflict with federal law and are, therefore, unenforceable. Section 1(b) of the bill provides, in part, that “a law enforcement officer shall not give effect to a civil immigration detainer by. . . (2) Notifying federal immigration authorizes of such individual's release. . . .” However, 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.> 1644 essentially bar a state from prohibiting or restricting a state government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status of an alien in the United States (this concern has been addressed in the substitute language). Section 1(b)(3) of the bill may also be unenforceable. That section provides that a law enforcement officer, including judicial marshals, may not “otherwise expend. . . time or resources to facilitate the individuals transfer to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. . . .” To the extent that expending time and resources are integral to communicating with Homeland Security in response to a detainer, this subsection may also violate 8 U.S.C. 1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644. In conclusion, the Division is concerned that the bill would create an untenable conflict between federal and state law directly impacting the division's operations.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (ACLU), Sandra J. Staub: Under Sevure Communities (S-Comm), any time an individual is arrested and booked into a participating local jail for any reason, his or her fingerprints are run through an immigration database maintained by ICE. ICE may then choose to issue an immigration detainer. When local law enforcement authorities rely on these detainers to keep people in jail, both public safety and civil liberties are in jeopardy. With this proposed legislation, Connecticut will demonstrate respect for civil rights, increase public safety and restore local government control. S-Comm undermines public safety by eroding trust between police and immigrant communities. Furthermore, S-Comm detainers are issues without any evidence demonstrating that the 4^th Amendment and due process requirements in the U.S. Constitution have been met. Law enforcement agencies in Connecticut are being asked to deprive people of their liberty without any indication from ICE that the detainer satisfies these important constitutional requirements. Finally, some law enforcement agencies in other states, like California, for example, have concluded that ICE detainers are simply requests that they are not required to fulfill.

Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (CCDLA), Elisa L. Villa: The bill provides a uniform protocol for state and local law enforcement to follow when ICE issues a civil immigration detainer. While the bill allows state and local authorities to hold individuals who have serious or violent felony convictions upon the request of ICE it also reflects a civil detainer's functional limitations and provides an important mechanism for relief upon an agency's failure to abide by these restrictions. This bill gives legislative force to the legal definition of a civil immigration detainer as a mere request from federal immigration agents for the detention of an individual, and as such, a civil immigration detainer carries no legal mandate for any state or local law enforcement agency. This bill will, therefore, help restore the trust of the immigrant population in their local police departments and the state judicial system. The recent implementation of the federal Secure Communities program in Connecticut has had deleterious effects on public safety because noncitizen residents, including victims and witnesses, are afraid to have any interaction with law enforcement or the courts for fear that they will be targeted by ICE.

Rev. Dr. Allie Perry: This bill will be a critical and much needed corrective to the injurious consequences of the “Secure Communities” program which wrongly presses local police departments and court marshals to engage in the work of immigration enforcement. Under the Secure Communities program, which mandates immigration checks of everybody booked in local jails, over 400 Connecticut residents, most with no criminal record, have been deported, wrenching parents from children and tearing apart families.

Junta for Progressive Action, Ana María Rivera: When Secure Communities was implemented it was devastating and heart-wrenching to witness the fear that it created in the community, as some citizens of New Haven feared that law enforcement would become synonymous with ICE, that reporting crimes would result in getting deported, and that individuals would be separated from their families. No one should fear law enforcement, as they are there to protect people in the first place. Furthermore, New York City, Washington D.C., Cook County, IL, and Santa Clara, CA have all created policies or laws that limit compliance.

New Haven Police Department, Lieutenant Holly Wasilewski: The Department has worked hard to establish trust with all residents in the New Haven community. In 2006, the Department implemented General Order 06-2, a former policy meant to encourage all residents, regardless of immigration status, to feel comfortable reporting crime and talking with the police. This order has helped to create a sense of trust. In 2012, the S-Comm program went lice in Connecticut undermining the efforts that the Department had made and creating fear in much of the immigrant community. Individuals had kept kids home from school, stayed home from work, and withdrew from interactions with police. This bill will work to help re-establish trust by encouraging the Department of Corrections, Judicial Marshals, and local law enforcement to exercise discretion and only comply with ICE requests when a criminal suspect is convicted of a felony under Connecticut law, thereby setting a uniform standard for all law enforcement and bringing participation in the program back to its original goals.

Office of the Mayor of New Haven, Sean Matteson: Supports the bill as Chief of Staff to Mayor DeStefano. New Haven is a welcoming and open community and is at its best when it provides opportunities for economic and social mobility for all families. S-Comm runs counter to what New Haven values as a community.

City of Hartford, Mayor Pedro Segarra & Chief of Police James C. Rovella: The bill will greatly alter in a positive way how the state engages in the Secure Communities program. Present law requires local law enforcement officials and the Department of Corrections to detain, under federal authority, and fingerprint suspected undocumented immigrant; preparing them for detention or deportation. This bill would amend that requirement and instead allow for discretion and only require compliance if a criminal suspect is convicted of a felony under Connecticut law. Passage of the bill would allow Connecticut to join other jurisdictions including California, Washington D.C., Massachusetts and New York City in repairing a broken system.

Kevin Dean: Supports the bill as a student at Yale Divinity School. This legislation is about law enforcement gaining back the trust of the immigrant communities in the state. This bill is consistent with the principle that every human being is created equal found both in religious texts as well as in the Declaration of Independence.

Mary Yanik: Supports the bill as an intern at the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy clinic at the Yale law school. After the clinic brought a lawsuit against the Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC), the DOC put into place a policy to review detainers on a case-by-case basis. While this policy is an important step forward, it currently only applies to individuals held in DOC custody and does not extend to other law enforcement agencies who may hold Connecticut residents on immigration detainers, like local police and the judicial marshals. This bill would address this and other gaps in DOC policy. Connecticut stands on firm legal ground in seeking to release residents to their families rather than hold them for ICE after their state custody expires.

32BJ, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Kurt Westby and Oral Testimony
Submitted by Matt O'Connor: The expansion of the misguided federal S-Comm program throughout the state threatens to indiscriminately draw hard working immigrants into detention and deportation proceedings. This is not good policy for Connecticut or its residents. Immigration status does not impact worker's legal right to organize, join a union, or otherwise enforce their workplace rights. 32BJ has run successful organizing campaigns involving immigrant and non-immigrant workers standing shoulder to shoulder to improve their workplace conditions in Connecticut. However, bad-actor employers often use threats of immigration enforcement or the need to re-verify workers' status as tools of intimidation to chill workers from organizing or enforcing their rights.

Unidad Latina en Acción (ULA), John Jairo Lugo: The members of ULA are immigrants who face serious abuses in the workplace, some of which have been paid as little as $2 per hour working in restaurants, farms, factories, and construction sites in Connecticut. Immigrants have also come to ULA because their landlords have turned off the heat in the winter and violated housing codes or because they have ended up in the hospital because of domestic abuse. ULA recommends contacting the police about these matters, but testifies that the immigrants are fearful of being deported if they do so. At the time of the testimony submitted by ULA, three of its members are in deportation proceedings because of S-Comm. The three members were arrested by mistake or because of racial profiling had had the criminal charges ultimately dismissed against them, however, instead of being released from custody, they were held by court marshals on immigration detainers and turned over to ICE. ICE data shows that of the majority of people issued immigration detainers, 77% had no criminal conviction and were arrested for charges that were later dismissed. In Connecticut, 40% of people deported had no criminal convictions and another 40% were convicted of misdemeanors including traffic offenses. This bill would create the guidelines needed to stop needless detentions and deportations.

Mariano Cardoso, Jr.: Supports the bill as a student at Central Connecticut State University. Mr. Cardoso recounted a traumatic experience of how he and other family members were taken away from a family gathering by ICE and other law enforcement officials. Mr. Cardoso believes that his story is not that different from those of many immigrant families in the state and this bill could change the conditions that put families at risk and which could end arbitrary arrests and deportations.

New Haven Peoples Center, Joelle Fishman: Living in fear, and losing the family's main wage earner, is harmful to the individuals and their families and it is also harmful to the communities in which they live and to the entire state of Connecticut. Immigration status is not relevant to, and should not be brought into play, in cases of minor violations or traffic stops. The time has come to reckon with the fact that many hard working immigrant families contribute significantly to the state's economy and well-being. Undocumented workers make up 4.5% of Connecticut's workforce. Causing disruption and heartbreak and crisis to these families hurts us all.

Service Employees International Union, Rochelle Palache: Supports the bill as an immigrant and organizer with the Service Employees International Union CT State Council. The TRUST Act will allow state and local law enforcement officers to use their discretion in carrying out the detention policies of the S-Comm federal program only in the case of individuals convicted of a serious felony. The limited law enforcement resources should be refocused on responding to real threats to communities, instead of being used to break up families and racially profile people.

Connecticut Fair Housing Center, María Cristina Cuerda: S-Comm has wide-ranging and extremely damaging effects on the lives of undocumented immigrants in the State of Connecticut. Not only does it result in the deportation of individuals never convicted of a crime, quite contrary to its stated goal, but it also creates fear of the authorities in immigrant communities. This fear undermines public safety and the ability of individuals to seek recourse through the legal system when they are the victim of a crime and when they are exploited at work or retaliated against by their landlords. We must undo S-Comm because it contributes to an environment of hostility toward and racial profiling of Latinos. Passing the TRUST Act is the change to undo this harmful policy.

Greg Williams: Supports the bill as a professional ministry student at the Yale Divinity School. Mr. Williams recounted two stories in oral testimony of families who had been torn apart as a result of deportation proceedings enacted against them.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

None Expressed