A contentious bill, essentially turning Maine into a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants by severely limiting local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), passed through the legislature on Tuesday, raising serious concerns for law enforcement.
[RELATED: Maine to Become Sanctuary State for Illegal Alien Criminals Under Bill Heading to Janet Mills’ Desk…]
Law enforcement officials and lawmakers with experience in the field, including Assistant Senate Minority Leader Matt Harrington (R-York), have warned against the negative impact of Rep. Deqa Dhalac’s (D-South Portland) LD 1971 that implements sanctuary city policies.
“In plain English: it ties the hands of our officers, shields dangerous criminals from accountability, and makes our communities less safe — all to score political points with the far-left fringe. Let me be clear: this isn’t about politics. This is about public safety,” said Sen. Harrington in a social media post following the bill’s passage.
“Our job is to uphold the law — not selectively ignore it to appease activist groups. This law puts ideology over safety, and it puts Maine law enforcement in harm’s way. To every officer out there: I’ve got your back. To every law-abiding Mainer: you deserve a government that takes your safety seriously. This bill does neither,” he added.
Harrington is a 17-year law enforcement veteran and currently serves as a reserve police officer for Kennebunk. He believes that restricting the ability of lawmakers to enforce immigration law and cooperate with ICE will harm Mainers and make the state less safe.
Both the House and Senate voted in favor of the bill on Tuesday, largely along party lines except for Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford), who voted with Democrats in favor of the bill, and Rep. Dani O’Halloran (D-Brewer), who opposed it in the House.
The legislature approved an amended version of the bill that made it somewhat less extreme, but it nevertheless maintained prohibitions on a variety of activities, including:
- Inquiring into a person’s immigration status.
- Detaining a person solely based on a hold request from an immigration authority.
- Providing non-public information about a person’s release date or personal details (e.g., home or work address) to immigration authorities.
- Making arrests based solely on a hold request.
- Assisting immigration authorities in activities under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) (federal immigration enforcement powers).
- Performing the functions of an immigration authority.
Harrington is not the only lawmaker with law enforcement experience to warn against the bill.
Sen. Scott Cyrway (R-Kennebec), who retired as the most decorated deputy at the Kennebec County Sheriff’s Office, also warned of the dangers of the bill.
“Maine is the second-safest state in the nation, was the first, not anymore. With this bill, it will change things,” said Sen. Cyrway testifying on the senate floor.
“This proposal inhibits the ability of law enforcement officers to carry out their day-to-day duties, make decisions based on local public safety needs, and communicate necessary information with other law enforcement agencies. We should be promoting cooperation among those who protect our communities, not putting local law enforcement in its own silo,” he added.
He warned that even the amended version of the bill—allegedly made to address law enforcement concerns, but without consulting any officials—is cause for grave concern.
“These proposals pose a great risk to the safety of the respondant, the law enforcement officer, and the public. According to immigration law enforcement, when a detainer is not honored by local law enforcement, immigration will simply pursue the person in the open,” said Cyrway.
“Searching to apprehend someone at large in an uncontrolled environment will only lead to escalate tensions during an arrest, thereby putting both the respondent and the officer in danger,” he added.
When the bill was first considered in a public hearing in May, multiple law enforcement groups, including the Maine Sheriffs’ Association and the Maine State Police, testified against it.
“The Department of Public Safety and the Maine State Police believe in the rule of law and due process, however, this bill allows for protections that no other crimes receive. By eliminating the ability for law enforcement to respond to immigration detainers and administrative warrants this bill significantly reduces law enforcement’s ability to work with our federal partners,” said Major Lucas W. Hare on behalf of the Maine State Police.
“LD 1971 could impact millions of dollars in federal grant funding the Department of Public Safety is currently receiving annually. The loss of this revenue to the Maine State Police, an agency that is smaller now than it was in 1990, would have a direct impact on rural patrol services and public safety,” he added.
The Maine Sheriffs’ Association raised similar concerns.
“As sheriffs, we cannot and should not be forced to pick and choose which state and federal laws to enforce. Nor should we be forced to not cooperate with our federal law enforcement partners. State and local police have no business in unilaterally enforcing immigration law, but standing in the way of immigration enforcement without some constitutional right to do so is wrong,” they said.
The Maine Wire reached out to the Maine State Police and the Maine Sheriffs’ Association, asking them how the passage of LD 1971 will impact the state’s law enforcement and whether they still oppose the bill after the amendment, but they did not immediately respond.
Having passed enactment votes in both the House and Senate, the bill with grave implications for the tradition of federalism in America now heads to Governor Janet Mills’ (D) desk where it stands a good chance of being signed into law.
