In a statewide effort to support President Donald Trump's mass deportation plan, the North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee today gave a favorable report to the bill that seeks, among other things, strengthen collaboration between state agencies and ICE.
The initiative, SB 153 “North Carolina Border Protection Act”, requires law enforcement agencies to sign 287(g) agreements, delegating immigration enforcement duties to state officials.
La North Carolina General Assembly The House of Representatives had already passed HB 10, which requires local sheriffs to collaborate with ICE. The new proposal seeks to extend this collaboration to the Department of Public Safety, the Highway Patrol, the Department of Corrections and the Bureau of Investigation.
“Let me start by saying that President Trump has taken swift action since taking office to stem the tide of illegal immigration,” said Senator Buck Newton on the Judiciary Committee. “I’m glad we finally got this passed.”HB 10 law), which required the sheriffs cooperate with ICESenate Bill 153 takes the next necessary steps.”
The measure was introduced by state Senate Speaker Phil Berger and sponsored by Sens. Newton and Warren Daniel, both of whom co-chair the Judiciary Committee.
Now, the SB 153 initiative will be discussed tomorrow Thursday, February 27 at 10 am in the Senate Rules and Operations Committee.
Other excerpts from SB 153
- Implementation of 287(g) program by some state agencies.
- Restriction of access to public programs for undocumented immigrants, although they currently do not have legal access.
- Sanctions for local governments that fail to comply with state immigration laws.
- Prohibition of counties and cities from adopting "sanctuary" policies, despite the existence of a law that already prohibits them.
- Prohibition for institutions at the University of North Carolina (UNC) from adopting policies that limit cooperation with immigration authorities.
They consider the project anti-immigrant
In public comments, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spokesperson Sammy Salkin noted that the measure raises new legal and constitutional challenges.
“This bill is clearly anti-immigrant,” the ACLU spokesperson told Enlace Latino NC “This isn't legislation that will take steps to make our community safer. It's not taking steps to reduce what's called 'public service waste.' This bill is specifically targeted to harm immigrant communities.”
He also stressed that it will not only affect the undocumented immigrants, but could have much broader repercussions in terms of racial discrimination and civil rights violations.
Mark Swallow of Democracy Out Loud said in public comments that this measure assumes that people are criminals for being undocumented.
“This House Bill 153 is like something you'd come up with at 3 a.m. with your creative side working, but your logical side not quite there. And then, when you read it in the middle of the day, you realize, no, it doesn't make sense,” he added.
Debate on provisions of the measure
Democratic Sens. Dan Blue (Wake), Mujtaba Mohammed (Mecklenburg) and Sophia Chitlik (Durham) questioned several provisions of the measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Republican Senator Newton (Cabarrus) responded and here is a summary of the discussion.
Concerns about administrative burden
Senator Mohammed expressed concern about the additional administrative burden that could be created by requiring state agencies to cooperate with ICE.
“All of our state agencies are stretched to the limit. They have no staff, no support,” Senator Mohammed explained.
Responding to these concerns, Senator Newton said that while the budget process is just beginning, there is no anticipated need for additional funding.
“At this time, we don't anticipate any additional funding needs, but I'm sure the agencies will let us know if they believe there are any, and we'll certainly consider it at that time,” Newton responded.
Despite what Senator Newton mentioned, jurisdictions that participate in the 287(g) program may face significant operating and administrative expenses. Recently, the Pender County Sheriff chose not to participate in the program due to the associated costs.
You may be interested: Two teenagers become voices for immigrant rights in Asheville
Audit of benefit programs
Senator Chitlik challenged provision two of the bill that seeks to ensure that undocumented people are not using the benefit programs.
“What strikes me about this part of the bill is that it focuses on auditing the participation of undocumented immigrants in programs from which they are excluded by law,” Senator Chitlik commented. “Not only are they excluded from these programs, but they also contribute to their funding, which creates a paradox when attempting to audit them.”
For example, undocumented people are not eligible for programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
For this reason, the senator asked that they consider removing Section 2 of this bill altogether. She also questioned whether ineligible individuals are taking advantage of these programs under current laws. “What evidence do we have to raise this kind of concern?” Chitlik asked.
To this, Senator Newton responded that They have no evidence that the immigrant undocumented immigrants are benefiting from these programs.
“I'm not sure we have any proof at this point. That's why we want to conduct the audit, to make sure that's not what's happening,” Newton replied. “So we don't know for sure.”
Collaboration with ICE
The proposal requires law enforcement agencies to identify the immigration status of individuals under their “supervision” or “custody.”
Senator Blue questioned whether the ambiguity of the language could make its impact too broad.
“I’m concerned about its overbroadness and don’t want it to have a chilling effect on the First Amendment,” Blue said.
He also sought clarification on whether the proposal falls under the provisions of Miranda v. Arizona. That case stated that whenever a person is stopped by the police, he or she must be informed prior to questioning of the rights granted to him or her by law. fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.
Senator Newton responded that they could make changes to the bill's language to be more precise.
“I think we were thinking about it in terms of, as you said, more of a Miranda-type scenario,” Senator Newton explained. “But it's something we can think about and make sure that if any adjustments need to be made to achieve our intention, we can do so.”
Next steps
SB 153 is expected to receive a favorable report in the Senate Rules and Operations Committee early Thursday morning. It could therefore be brought to a vote in the full state Senate as early as next week.
Get the latest updates on SB 153 in your email by subscribing here to our Newsletter
Republish our stories for free on your website or newspaper. We follow the Creative Commons license. Click the box and follow the instructions.
