Over the past two weeks we have witnessed continued lawlessness by the masked militarists of ICE: breaking into private homes without warrants; pepper spraying, teargassing, and assaulting non-violent protesters; breaking windows of cars to extricate drivers who fail to follow their orders; and shooting and killing people. In all cases, the Executive branch of the Federal government claims that ICE agents are not only adhering to guidelines that are supported by the Constitution but also insisting that ICE agents are immune from lawsuits or arrests for injuries or deaths that result from their actions.  

The actions of ICE and the executive branch of the Federal government in response to the protests in Minneapolis reinforce the need for legislators at all levels to act. At the Federal level there are indications that the Democrats in the Senate will not pass the budget unless reforms to ICE are incorporated. At the State level, legislatures are considering bills that will ensure that their local police and state officials are not placed in the same position as those in Minnesota. 

If State legislators need some ideas on the kinds of legislation that might be helpful, they could draw from resources like State Futures, the left-leaning analog to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which Wikipedia describes as a “nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States.” As one who follows education laws closely, it is very clear that NH’s GOP legislators have used ALEC’s model legislation to craft bills that expand school choice and deregulate private schools and homeschooling. Given the chaos witnessed in Minnesota because of ICE’s incursion and the need to move quickly, NH Democrats should consider drawing on some of the ideas other states like Vermont are exploring to control ICE’s alleged unlawful and unconstitutional behavior.  

A quick review of State Futures web site offers links to bills that State legislatures have introduced that proscribe ICE’s worst actions, bills that: 

  • set limits on 289 (g) agreements. 
  • prohibit facial coverings by law enforcement officers; 
  • require law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and IDs. 
  • forbid immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” like schools, churches, hospitals, and libraries; 
  • restrict the assignment of National Guard to other states
  • provide State Health Departments access to ICE detention centers,

The website also offers examples of resolutions passed by State legislatures that signal their disapproval of ICE’s actions. 

ICE’s actions were not the only issue in Minnesota, however. When Minneapolis Police attempted to intervene in the conflicts between protesters and ICE officers they were rebuffed. Worse, because the executive branch of the federal government asserted that they had complete control of the investigations of the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, they denied local and state police access to any evidence they gathered.  

As one who worked on legislative committees for nearly two decades in Maine, New Hampshire, and Maryland, I realize the political realities of State government. Passing bills takes time and requires consensus. That said, having served as SAU 16 (Exeter) Superintendent in the mid-1980s, in Hanover from 2003-2011, done some consulting work in the North Country for a couple of years after I retired, and lived in the state for over 26 years, I see several points of consensus among voters that warrant some kind of legislative action. Some examples:

  • I do not believe any town in New Hampshire wants their police force or Sheriff’s department to take orders from ICE or any federal agency. 
  • Nor do I believe any town government would allow their local law enforcement to be denied access to evidence of shootings or beatings by masked men in their community, even if those shootings and beatings were done by masked men employed by the federal government. 
  • I cannot believe voters in a state with a license plate that reads “Live Free or Die” would support being required to prove their citizenship to someone with a mask and a weapon or forced let a group of masked intrude into their home into based on hearsay evidence that an immigrant lived there. 
  • I cannot believe gun rights advocates and libertarians believe it is acceptable to shoot someone who brings a weapon to a protest in a state that fought for unrestricted open carry laws. 
  • Finally, I cannot believe a Governor or legislators would sit by idly if 3,000 uninvited ICE agents descended on the largest city in their state.  

Legislators in both New Hampshire and VT are taking action in response ICE’s actions in Minnesota. Both states have bills under consideration that forbid police to wear masks, and NH has bills under consideration that would allow state oversight of ICE detention facilities in their state and regulate, to the extent possible, 289(g) agreements. At this point, indications are that New Hampshire’s legislators are supporting business-as-usual with ICE, an approach that does not align with the State’s values as I see them but appears aligns with the position the Governor is taking.   

VT has a more expansive set of bills that would limit ICE involvement, in large measure because their Governor has strongly supported the need to change the way ICE operates and is working with the legislature to craft bills that reflect the ethos of the state. 

Like many readers, I am frustrated at the state of our democracy and find myself wanting to do something to put an end to ICE’s behavior in Minnesota. While our democracy exists, I intend to double down on my communications with those who represent me at the State and Federal level. I urge you to do the same. If you have a laptop, you can track the bills your state legislators are considering and share your opinions with them. If you have a phone, you can call your Senators and Representative and share your thoughts. Maybe ICE’s overreach will have one salutary effect: it will get those of us who are taking democracy for granted an opportunity to participate.