One of President-elect Donald Trump’s key campaign promises could have serious ramifications for Vermonters living in the country without legal authorization, and advocates want state and local officials to protect migrant farmworkers and other immigrants from any mass deportation efforts undertaken by the federal government.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to deport all of the estimated 11 million people living in the United States illegally. That population includes approximately 1,500 immigrants living and working on Vermont’s dairy farms, many of whom have resided in the state for more than a decade.
They play a very valuable role. Many have been here for many, many years. They are incredibly supportive of dairy and produce and other industries in Vermont.Vermont Secretary of Agriculture Anson Tebbetts
A woman Vermont Public is referring to only as Rosie, because of her immigration status, said through an interpreter that the migrant community is “scared” and “fearful.”
“They also understand that this is not the first time this has happened,” said Rosie, a member of an organization, called Migrant Justice, that works to improve protections and working conditions for farmworkers. “Many community members that have been here for years working on dairy farms, they know what’s coming, and we’re prepared for it.”
Those preparations include efforts by organizations such as Migrant Justice and the ACLU of Vermont to erect safeguards at the state level for people whose immigration status puts them at risk of deportation.
Local cooperation
A recent analysis conducted by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center found that over the last decade, at least 70% of arrests made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement inside the U.S. involved collaboration with other law enforcement agencies, such as state or local police.
“The sort of mass deportation efforts that the Trump administration is threatening can only work at scale with the active participation of state and local governments,” said Lia Ernst, legal director at the ACLU of Vermont. “And we do not have to make that choice.”
During Trump’s first term in office, Gov. Phil Scott and lawmakers moved quickly to carve out the sorts of protections that the ACLU has requested. Scott signed legislation in 2017 that requires state and local law enforcement agencies to get permission from the governor before they can enter into contracts — known as 287(g) agreements — that would allow them to assist in federal immigration enforcement activities. That statute is still in force today.
The Legislature also expanded and updated a statewide fair and impartial policing policy that attempts to prevent state and local police from collaborating with U.S. Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement on civil immigration matters.
The act of being in the U.S. without authorization is generally a civil offense. Immigration violations can in some instances carry criminal charges, such as when someone is deported and then returns without permission.
“We’ve proved before that we would take whatever action we needed to protect Vermonters, and some of those folks who are here that we need to have as part of our communities,” Scott said during a media briefing last week.
Trump effect
Scott said it’s premature to enact any additional measures in advance of Trump’s second term. And he said he’s skeptical the incoming administration will have the appetite or capacity for the type of mass deportation that might imperil the residency of Vermont’s farmworkers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection referred an inquiry about potential changes in enforcement policies to Trump’s transition team, which did not respond to a request for an interview.
“And I’m not sure we know completely what his plan is, because I don’t see that what he has proposed is realistic,” said Scott, a Republican who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. “And I would have to think that those who are coming into power with him would understand that.”
Democratic Attorney General Charity Clark said she’s more “nervous.” In 2017, she said, people read Trump’s campaign promises as “hyperbole.”
“We know better now,” Clark told Vermont Public. “We know that he means what he says, and we can be prepared for that.”
Clark said she’s ready to use the weight of her office to block any actions by the Trump administration that violate the rights of Vermonters.
“Generally speaking, when the federal government breaks federal law or the Constitution, the states have standing to sue,” she said. “And that’s what we’ve done in the past, and that’s what we’ll do in the future if we need to.”
Information loophole
But Clark and other state law enforcement officials have been unwilling to accept a key request from migrant farmworkers and their allies: an update to Vermont’s fair and impartial policing policy that would explicitly bar police from sharing information related to a person’s immigration or citizenship status with federal authorities.
Will Lambek, with Migrant Justice, said the absence of that provision has created “dangerous loopholes that could be exploited by police officers who are looking to aid in President-elect Trump’s promise of mass deportation.
“And we think that state and local law enforcement agencies should close those loopholes,” he said.
Clark said any prohibition on the type of information sharing that Migrant Justice and the ACLU are seeking would violate a federal law that bans states from stopping police agencies from communicating to federal authorities about immigration issues.
Chris Brickell is the executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, which certifies compliance with Vermont’s fair and impartial policing law.
“We can’t violate federal law,” Brickell said. “And while some folks may not agree with them, they are the law of the land. And we’re required to follow federal law, so we can’t do something that puts us in direct contradiction of federal law.”
Brickell said the fair and impartial policing policy does prohibit police from sharing information such as a person’s address, location, phone number, physical appearance or license plate number. And he said those provisions limit the possibility that state or local police could provide the kind of information federal authorities would need to locate and detain someone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Local appetite
Some jurisdictions want to go further, federal law notwithstanding. The town of Richmond earlier this year submitted a fair and impartial policing policy to the Criminal Justice Council that included blanket prohibitions on sharing information related to an individual’s immigration status. The Council declined to approve that policy, however, after staff deemed that it was out of compliance with both federal and state law.
The council cannot in good faith adopt a policy and make other agencies accept a policy that is in direct conflict with federal law and our own state law.Kim McManus, Vermont Criminal Justice Council
State law, according to Kim McManus, general counsel at VCJC, says any fair and impartial policing policy that is in “conflict” with federal code shall be deemed “abolished” upon adoption.
“The council cannot in good faith adopt a policy and make other agencies accept a policy that is in direct conflict with federal law and our own state law,” McManus said.
David Sander, chair of the Richmond Select Board, said the town’s proposed policy reflected input from local residents, hundreds of whom attended forums to speak in favor of the language favored by Migrant Justice.
“And I’m personally uncomfortable being put in a situation where there’s an expectation that the local police force could, should, might be used as an enforcement tool for immigration,” Sander said. “In my opinion, that’s something that really isn’t germane to local policing. But we’re in the uncomfortable situation where it is.”
Migrant Justice and the ACLU argue that state law does not prohibit the VCJC from approving policies that violate federal code. And they say it was crafted specifically to allow local agencies to defy federal law in ways that don’t implicate state agencies.
Other law enforcement agencies say the state’s fair and impartial policing policy goes too far. Essex County Sheriff Trevor Colby submitted a proposed policy to the Criminal Justice Training Council that dialed back on restrictions against communications between his officers and federal immigration authorities.
The council declined to approve the policy, saying it failed to meet minimum benchmarks. Colby said in an email to council staff that he believes communication restrictions in Vermont’s model fair and impartial policy already violate federal law.
“I believe all council members voting to approve the policy are in direct violation,” he wrote. “And any person assisting in the enforcement of the sanctions for failing to adopt the policy are accessories.”
In an interview with Vermont Public, Colby said he’s less interested in helping the feds detain migrant farmworkers than he is in alerting agents to illegal border crossings. Border Patrol officials say illegal crossings in the Swanton Sector last year — a 300-mile stretch that includes Essex County — shattered the previous record.
Colby said he and his deputies have witnessed some of those incidents. And he said residents of his county have a public safety interest in their swift resolution.
“Why are they coming across illegally? And do they have a criminal record that prohibits them from coming in? Have they been removed from the country multiple times? Are they smuggling something?” Colby said. “The Border Patrol in the northern part of my county are my first responders. And they’re the ones that have a larger law enforcement presence … than anyone else.”
Not everyone thinks Trump’s deportation plans are bad public policy, of course —the president-elect won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Harris beat Trump in Vermont 63% to 32%, though Trump won more votes in Vermont than he did in his two prior attempts.
Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said the workplace raids Trump envisions, for example, are “absolutely” an appropriate intervention. He said the quality of the U.S. jobs market has suffered in large part because lax immigration policies have abetted a race to the bottom among employers.
“We have created self-fulfilling prophecies in many sectors of our labor market, where if you offer poor wages and poor working conditions, then you don’t find Americans or legal immigrants who are prepared to do those jobs at the wages and working conditions that are offered,” Mehlman said.
Research conducted by the American Immigration Council, meanwhile, suggests that immigrant households — including those who are in the country without authorization — are part of the backbone of the U.S. economy.
Anson Tebbetts, secretary of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, said Vermont’s dairy sector especially is heavily dependent on the migrant farmworkers who live and work here.
“They play a very valuable role. Many have been here for many, many years. They are incredibly supportive of dairy and produce and other industries in Vermont,” he said.
Tebbetts said the deportation of those workers would disrupt the agriculture economy severely. And he said his agency will be watching Trump’s next moves closely.
“And if we need to react, we will react,” Tebbetts said. “But I think right now there’s a lot of speculation going on, and we just need to take a pause and monitor the situation and be ready if we need to act.”
Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message.
