Gov. Peter Shumlin and the Department of Public Safety announced a new policy today that effectively prohibits Vermont State Police from asking suspected illegal immigrants for papers unless they are suspected of another crime.
According to a press release, the new policy states that “Vermont State Police troopers should not try to identify people whose only suspected violation is that they are present in the United States without proper documentation, but also makes clear that officers should continue to investigate suspected criminal activity.”
Previously, the state police’s “bias-free” policy barred troopers from asking about immigration status only when a suspected immigrant was a crime victim or witness. Vermont’s dairy farms are heavily dependent on migrant labor; several thousand Latino workers are employed in Vermont dairies, legally and illegally.
Shumlin launched a review of state policy in September after two undocumented migrant farm workers, one of them an outspoken activist, were detained by state police during a traffic stop and turned over to the U.S. Border Patrol. The governor took heat from Republicans when he said afterward that Vermont’s policy on immigration enforcement amounted to “look the other way.”
The new policy was authored by Shumlin’s former legal counsel Beth Robinson, who the governor recently appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Click here to read Shumlin’s press release. Click here to download the policy.
Shumlin’s press release quotes Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn saying the policy will “ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in Vermont.” Attorney General William Sorrell, who has urged all Vermont police departments to adopt a policy akin to Shumlin’s new one, said, “This is good news. Now I hope more Vermont police departments will adopt bias-free policies that emphasize their primary role of enforcing Vermont criminal laws.”
The new policy includes “special provisions” for law enforcement operating near the Canadian border, allowing them to take action relating to “unlawful border crossings in progress, as well as to call for support from federal authorities when required to protect officer or public safety,” the press release says.
Click here to read about a Franklin County dairy farmer near the Canadian border whose migrant workers were removed earlier this year after one them accidentally dialed 911.
The VT Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project, which launched a sustained lobbying effort to get the policy changed, welcomed the new policy as a “big step forward” but then expressed some fears about it.
“The policy has a number of exceptions to when police can ask about immigration status and engage in immigration enforcement,” said Solidarity Project spokesperson Natalia Fajardo.
This article appears in Nov 2-8, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“Asylum is practically impossible to get, as you have to show a credible fear of persecution based on one of the five statutory grounds. You’re wrong that people are just getting asylum as a get out of jail free card.”You misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say people are getting asylum. You are correct in that it is almost never granted. However, it buys one several years to remain in the states. Then after the last appeal is up they either bolt or ask for voluntary departure. But it takes several years. It’s not a get out of jail free card, more like buying some time.
Caryn , you are kind of talking in circles here. “There is no law that obligates citizens to report crimes (this would violate free speech requirements, in fact)”. There is actually. Free speech grants you the right to say what you want to, not to hide knowldge of a crime. Just an FYI. But lets for example say you see an aquaintance rob a bank at gun point. If you say nothing you will most certainly be charged. Now onto your argument about local law enforcement. First, no they are not charged with tracking down illegals. They are however required to report suspicious activity and if they have knowledge of an illegal they are required to check into that. That includes asking for if someone has identification and verifying that identification. Another FYI, something does not have to be “obvious” for a cop to investigate. There only needs to be reasonable suspicion. Finally, all Shumlin is saying is to ignore federal law. Do not ask, do not prosecute, just pretend we are all US citizens sitting around a campfire singing cumbya. I also believe that yes, if a sheriff enters a building and it isn’t believed to be up to code they have every right to call the housing authority. Heck, any person can do that.
If you see someone actually crossing the border, then that is a crime so you can arrest them. All the police can do otherwise is arrest people for crimes, they can do nothing but turn people over to ICE for immigration violations. If a violation is obvious (as in, the person pulled over says, “I am here unlawfully. Please send me to ICE,”), then the police can give them over to ICE. Considering that this situation never happens, though, the immigration violations are not “obvious,” and so long as the police officers don’t know then it is totally within their discretion to not ask about it. All Shumlin is saying is that being Hispanic and having an accent are not “obvious” in the sense that they compel police action. I’m really surprised about how gung-ho you all are about police action against non-criminals. This is like saying that if police suspect that you own a building that isn’t up to code, then they should be able to arrest you, detain you and then turn you over to the Housing Authority. We should think carefully before we decide to use the police arm of the state in this manner.
I echo Jcarter’s point: all law enforcement officials in the US are authorized and obligated to enforce local AND federals laws.Don’t confuse apples and oranges. It’s true that states aren’t allowed to make laws in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction (hence, US v. Arizona on immigration, and Entergy v. Vermont on nuclear safety). But that’s different from saying states can’t enforce federal laws. No only can they — they are required to. If I am a Vermont deputy sheriff and I see someone running across the US-Canadian border, I am obligated to do something about it.
JCarter, the term “illegal” is political, not legal. Calling something illegal doesn’t make it a crime. You’re right that most people are released on their own recognizance, but if they are unlawful then they are subject to further hearings, and then either voluntary departure or detention pending removal. However, this is a discretionary matter and many IJs do decide to detain (and there are many circumstances in which detention is mandatory). Asylum is practically impossible to get, as you have to show a credible fear of persecution based on one of the five statutory grounds. You’re wrong that people are just getting asylum as a get out of jail free card.There is no law that obligates citizens to report crimes (this would violate free speech requirements, in fact) and local law enforcement has NO AUTHORITY to uphold immigration law. They are NOT REQUIRED to investigate immigration status, nor should this be since their job is to solve REAL CRIME. If the police could do this, then why would ICE exist?The fact is that the system is broken. Immigrants are part our community to stay and many of them have been here for years and are productive members of society. Don’t demonize them as criminals; think about the situation rationally. Or at least learn something about the law before you form opinions about it.
“Congress has the authority to regulate immigration and states don’t. This is how it’s always been, so even if states wanted to make unlawful presence a crime subject to local law enforcement, “Local law enforcement are required to uphold both local as well as federal laws. Period. Moreover, EVERY US citizen is obligated to report to the proper authorities a crime they have knowledge of. A local law enforcement officer who is aware of the presence of an illegally alien is bound to call them in. As are you Caryn, otherwise be prepared to be charged with abeting.
“Also, as soon as they go to immigration court they are given an order for removal, and detained for months and sometimes years (and because this detention is not technically “punitive” it doesn’t violate due process), unless they can lawfully be here, in which case, yes they can work just like everyone else. I don’t know where you’re getting your information JCarter.”Caryn, there are a few hundred detention cells. Most people that go to immigration court are never detained. It’s like this, they go to immigration court and ask for political asylum. Then they are “out of status” not here illegally, at which point they get their work card etc etc. Where do I get my info. From a bunch of illegals that I have called and reported several times. Some have been here for several years now. I’m not sure where you are getting your info, but usually only people who have committed crimes get detained. Not the average smoe who entered illegally or came on a visitor visa and didn’t leave. Regardless, they are here illegally. The term illegally makes them criminals.
Caleb, I’m not making any assumptions, I am telling you the state of the law. Some parts of immigration law are criminal, for example unlawful entry, but unlawful presence is not a crime. Also, under the 14th amendment due process rights apply to all people, not just citizens. Therefore, illegal immigrants are entitled to legal representation if they are accused of a crime, but not for unlawful presence because it is NOT A CRIME. Therefore, illegal is NOT illegal in this instance, and it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.Additionally, the federalism issue cannot be overstated. Congress has the authority to regulate immigration and states don’t. This is how it’s always been, so even if states wanted to make unlawful presence a crime subject to local law enforcement, this would likely be unconstitutional (this proposition remains to be tested in the Supreme Court, however).What experience do you have with immigration laws? Have you been to law school? Rather than making your own assumptions and saying “I think but I’m not sure,” why don’t you do some research?
Caryn,I don’t think your assumption is correct that Congress chose not to make illegal presence in the US a crime because then they would have to provide lawyers to the illegals. Because I’m not sure the 6th Amendment right to counsel applies to non-US citizens.And whether being here illegally is defined technically as a crime under the U.S. Code or not, illegal is illegal.Bottom line: You have no right to be in my house uninvited. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Knock and maybe I’ll invite you in. Break in or sneak in, and you should be deported. Period.
Jcarter – There is no 6th amendment right to counsel in immigration cases. People can pay for their own immigration lawyers, but most can’t afford it and therefore don’t have representation, even if they have really good arguments against removal. All I’m saying is that it’s wrong to say that illegal immigrants are “criminals.” Unlawful presence is NOT a crime, and people really need to stop saying that local law enforcement should “enforce” the law. They have no authority to do so – if they did then we would have to provide lawyers under the 6th amendment. Congress purposefully didn’t do this because it is so expensive.Also, as soon as they go to immigration court they are given an order for removal, and detained for months and sometimes years (and because this detention is not technically “punitive” it doesn’t violate due process), unless they can lawfully be here, in which case, yes they can work just like everyone else. I don’t know where you’re getting your information JCarter.