Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Local Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bangor committee weighs local action on 287(g) and LD 1259 as state bill advances
Summary
Residents and legislators urged the advisory committee to recommend the city ban cooperation with federal immigration enforcement (287(g)); committee members debated whether to wait for state action on LD 1259 or ask the council to act now.
Members of the Advisory Committee on Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights spent a substantial portion of their May 27 meeting discussing 287(g) immigration-enforcement agreements and a pending state bill, identified in the meeting as LD 1259, that would limit cooperation between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
Representative Sean Faircloth spoke to the committee and urged local action in addition to backing state legislation. Faircloth said the problem is not “the people who work for ICE” but the directives those employees have received, and argued that due process concerns justify local prohibitions. “Even if you are a criminal, you deserve due process,” he told the committee.
Several residents and committee members, including Joshua Fay, urged the advisory committee and city council to move ahead with a local policy prohibiting cooperation with ICE rather than waiting for the legislature. Fay said local adoption can create momentum at the state level and called for Bangor to act even if Representative Laurel (Rana) — whose bill he praised — faces a difficult legislative path.
Committee members and staff discussed legislative procedure and timing. Staff described LD 1259’s title to the committee as “An Act to enhance public safety in Maine by defining the relationship between local and federal law enforcement,” and summarized its core provision as prohibiting state or local law enforcement agencies or officers from entering into contracts with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Committee members were told the bill had a work session scheduled the next day in Augusta and that final state action would include multiple steps, including possible 90-day delays after adjournment before enactment.
Several committee members said they preferred not to delay local action while the state process runs its course. Others, including some city staff, said they wanted to see the state’s direction before recommending specific city action because state law can preempt local ordinances.
No formal committee resolution or vote was recorded in the meeting transcript. Committee members asked staff to notify them about upcoming hearings and to coordinate on public comment opportunities at the council and legislative levels.
The committee agreed to track the state bill’s progress and to consider recommending local action to City Council once they had updated information about legislative timing and legal implications.
