Nearly six years after Connecticut enacted the TRUST\nAct limiting the circumstances under which law enforcement agencies could\nrespond to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request, some\nNutmeg State lawmakers are moving to expand the act in a show of legislative\nlunacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On May 15, the Connecticut State Senate voted 20-15 along party lines<\/a> to pass legislation<\/a> to expand the Trust Act to require a judicial warrant before any law enforcement agency can reply to an ICE detainer request.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most concerning is language in the bill that requires\nthe establishment of \u201cnew procedures that law enforcement officers must follow\nwhen responding to these detainers, placing additional restrictions on the\nactions they may take and eliminating current law\u2019s requirement that they\nconsider specific public safety and risk factors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The removal of the public safety consideration is what\nconcerned opponents, including Republican state Rep. Rob Sampson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis bill protects people who are criminals. … I\ncan\u2019t say it more clearly,\u201d he said, adding that the \u201cpolicy doesn\u2019t just put\nme and my neighbors at risk, it puts the people in the undocumented community\nat risk, too.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n With Senate approval, the bill now heads to the state house for consideration. But that measure is no match for S.B. 948<\/a>, which borders on the criminally creative in terms of protecting criminal aliens. In short, the proposed bill would reduce the maximum misdemeanor sentences by one day, from 365 days to 364 days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What difference does a day make? Well, the legislation\u2019s\n\u201cstatement of purpose\u201d is quite explicit in stating it is \u201cto cause fewer\ndeportations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n With relation to immigration, federal law defines a felony as any crime that has a maximum sentence of\u00a0\u201cat least one year\u201d<\/a> or “one year or longer,” which is grounds for deportation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But the lawmakers were actually not the ones to\ntrigger this insanity of reducing the length of sentences. It was the\nConnecticut Sentencing Commission whose recommendation it was to change the\nstatute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And they were as brazen in acknowledging their aim. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA one-day reduction in maximum sentences would help address the disconnect between the state\u2019s misdemeanor offenses and the stark and asymmetrical immigration consequences that can result,\u201d said the Commission<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are, however, real consequences to pandering to\nthe whims of pro-amnesty advocates and their \u201cno-immigrant-is-illegal\u201d\npolicies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As FAIR\u2019s David Jaroslav has noted<\/a>, \u201cfelony convictions strictly limit the ability of immigration courts to do anything with criminal aliens other than to deport them and to keep them off the street until they\u2019re deported, while misdemeanor convictions\u00a0typically allow<\/a>\u00a0them to remain out on bond.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to remember what are deemed misdemeanor crimes. Yes, there are traffic violations and non-violent crimes. However, under Connecticut law, a Class A misdemeanor includes Criminally Negligent Homicide<\/a>, Assault<\/a> and even strangulation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several states already have passed<\/a> similar initiatives, but that does not make Connecticut\u2019s open borders lawmakers any less irresponsible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The year began with the January announcement by state Rep. Geoffrey Luxenberg of his proposed bill<\/a> to make officially declare Connecticut a sanctuary state, a move he said<\/a> was intended to counter President Trump\u2019s \u201cinhumane, aggressive, hostile, xenophobic, and racist policy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A similar effort failed in 2017, but if the two\npending bills make it to Gov. Ned Lamont (D), the Nutmeg State will be a\nsanctuary state in every meaning but name. And that should be frightening for\nConnecticut\u2019s residents \u2013 immigrant or native-born.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nearly six years after Connecticut enacted the TRUST Act limiting the circumstances under which law enforcement agencies could respond to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request, some Nutmeg State lawmakers are moving to expand the act in a show of legislative lunacy. On May 15, the Connecticut State Senate voted 20-15 along party<\/p>\n