♪ > > This week on the Wheelhouse.

immigration enforcement.

How are federal judges in Connecticut reacting the policy decisions from Trump?

2 > > for > > Connecticut Public on Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

It's a show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont recently signed into law new protections for undocumented migrants.

The bill seeks to keep ICE agents out of sensitive spots like churches and be identified by it name or badge number Connecticut's law comes as a rebuke to the Trump administration's aggressive immigration tactics which have included thousands of arrests of immigrants.

Many have been in the country for years and have no criminal records.

But a new analysis from political has examined the legality of those arrests and found a staggering rate of rejections from federal judges.

Joining us now to explain it's Kyle Cheney, a senior legal legal affairs reporter political Kyle.

Thank you so much for coming on here.

> > Great to be with for having me.

Great to have you > > So interested to hear in.

about your reporting in the base that you all have a political dot com.

We also want to hear from you, folks react to President Donald Trump's immigration policy by hitting us up on our YouTube stream or by giving us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7, to 0 9, 6, 7, 7, Talk about how you've seen the federal government's policy on immigration develop in the time since you've worked at Politico here.

> > Sure.

So the one thing is that it's just a very clear dividing line with the second Trump term in the first Trump administration.

The push the envelope on immigration policy that really try to maximize deportations.

Then.

But there are certain lines I didn't cross in certain policies, even push to the maximum extent.

I think, you know, if that was some of that was due to Donald Trump sort of noonis to public life, he didn't put the people around him.

That was sort of pursue is instinct to its policies to the maximum extent.

This term is very different.

They're they're hitting the gas much as possible and kind of daring the courts to keep up in some way.

That's by design.

And it has led to this enormous flood of the end of legal battles over the over the spot over their policies, which again are much more draconian in an aggressive than they were in the first > > It started in earnest in term.

January of 2025 and then immediately after being inaugurated, he made his policy agenda known on immigration.

What was he saying in those first few days?

> > I mean, it was that was the fleur flurry of executive orders that they were going to unleash ice.

The maximum extent possible.

And we're going to remove some of the the guardrails and sort of checks within the within department within the agency that were meant to be no limit enforcement operations that you mentioned in your churches and schools and hospitals and sensitive locations.

They're going to sort of make those easier.

They were going to to the maximum extent pursue not only the deportation of people who are here legally, but but their detention, as well as a holding as many people as possible in detention facilities and the way to sort her or discourage people from remaining in the > > Can you help us understand country.

if there's a way to quantify or maybe comprehend whether or not this is something that's unprecedented from a president.

The United States is flurry of orders.

The sort of executive action.

So if you're related to immigration, detentions are right, right?

Right.

Double to lead the immigration detention.

That's that's the key is, you know, there's been some reporting that that the deportation levels are actually don't, you know, have not reached the same level that they were in the Obama era, that that just simply > > is not been in that case yet.

The detention is a whole different story.

They're detaining more people.

I think the never before the meeting to build and in the running out of room in their facilities and their best partly because of a sharp shift in policy that essentially treats everyone the find anywhere in the country as though they just cross the border, which will come mandating their detention.

And that is sort of led to this uptick in detentions all over the country.

> > Many of these ice arrests and the subsequent detentions are challenged in federal court.

You've examined thousands of these cases.

Can you talk about which found out?

Absolutely.

And that.

> > And that's where our reporting comes in.

And we started to see these legal battles emerge and they really exploded in the last few months.

10's of thousands of people filing recalled habeas petition saying they've been detained unlawfully for one reason or another.

And the vast majority are suing over the fact that they have resided in this country for years.

In some cases they were even paroled in by a prior administration committed no crimes, establish roots family members, sometimes their children were citizens and they're being detained.

And the administration saying we're treating you as though you just cross the border, which requires your attention and no previous administration has ever done that done that before.

And so that as a result, we're getting this flood of litigation and the judges were reviewing their birthing.

These are illegal detentions.

There's a reason no other administration has done this before because it's not legal.

> > I want you to help us understand here how many cases there.

So I think 13,000 or something on the political website and just kind of give us the number.

> > So this is this is or was Yeah.

remarkable.

13,000 is the ruling that we're tracking.

That's probably an undercount to.

But 13,000 is the number of times courts have ruled whether or not a person's detention illegal or not, whether they were deprived due process, either a bond hearing or outright release.

And in about 11,000 people, almost 11,500 of those 13,000 rulings, the judges have agreed that the tension with illegal and deprive someone of due process.

And so just overwhelming rejection.

This probably 30,000 cases in the system that are still pending.

But of the ones that have been decided that it's overwhelming.

> > The administration being accused by anybody of intentionally flooding the courts.

And if so, how are they responding?

> > Yes, a look at that.

They mean when you ask him, we've lost 90% of cases.

How are we doing in looking would say that none of that's not very good rate.

But if the administration's goal is not necessarily to win these cases, but to make life as difficult as possible for as many people as possible.

They would like to see the port deported, then maybe the different metric.

And I think the advocates for people who have been detained say that's the goal here.

A lot of people are giving up you for all the ruling that are being one that many, many other cases where people are just saying just folding thing.

You know, I'm not going to sit in detention, hoping I win my case.

All told to pack up and I leave.

I might be deported.

But the end of this process anyway.

And so why fight?

And I think there's sense out there that that's the goal here making as onerous as possible, may be the deterrent effect on people coming in the future or maybe just encourage people who are here to leave.

And I think part of the response that they've had is they've issued some kind of guide for migrants or something like that that you can.

> > We're sort of self deport.

Yep.

And you have some kind of incentive to do yeah, they've even set out, right?

Like you could only be detained.

You might just just leave.

And then you won't be detained anymore.

You can.

And in fact, you detained if you leave on a voluntary basis, you know.

> > We'll give you without and dollars to plan your travel and you won't have a record against you if you ever try to come back in legally and that's their sort of pitch on that.

Even though many of the people are being detained in a legal way that are being in the courts and releasing them.

They're saying I don't want to deal with that process.

Just just go ahead and leave.

> > Can you give me a taste of the best response you've gotten so far?

Maybe from like an advocate or a lawmaker in your reporting.

So far, they've done like at least 5 or 6 stories on the database here since he's come out.

Give us like some reaction to this to this flooding here of the court?

> > Well, what we're seeing with the responses we're people are sort of in the reason we did this, people don't really understand the scale.

I think there's even judges and other district in really understand quite how many of these cases and rulings there were and what rate of rejections has been.

I think you know, there's been this concerning that the cases have flooded the system, the overwhelmed court courthouse in multiple districts across the country and others have been frustrated.

But I don't think they actually understood the magnitude.

And so they're citing our database quite a bit.

Some states are citing our database and saying thing you need to see like the Ron number of these cases that are being rejected in court as illegal COVID did put in a different perspective than just a, you know, a handful here, a handful there.

It's it's overwhelming.

> > Give us a call.

8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, If you'd like to talk to us on the Wheelhouse this morning, 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7.

You could also send us an e-mail.

You can comment our YouTube streamer live there.

We're talking about state law versus federal law here and you're talking about even some of these state lawmakers citing your reporting or something like that.

> > You're saying that.

> > Law enforcement at the federal level right now is detaining people almost certainly heading to the Supreme Court.

Talk more about what you mean there.

> > So because of the again, overwhelming the word of the day, the in the crush of these cases, it's happening.

Every district in the And that's led to appeals in some cases.

The losing the losing parties and in the government or the person was detained is appealing.

And we've got appeals court battles and every district, every appeals court circuit in the country, 5 of those circuits have already ruled the lead to a division division.

That's been the 5th and 8th circuit.

Consider the most conservative circuit in the country of ruled in favor of the administration's detention policy.

While 3 other circuits have ruled against them.

That is a classic like Taylor made situation.

That's going to go to the Supreme Court.

Everyone, including the judges and lawyers keep saying this is going to go to the Supreme Court.

It's almost, you know, nothing is ever certain.

But there is certain is they can be that's going to happen.

> > Is there any indication of how the justices may react to this?

I ask because I think this is a point we want to underscore in your reporting when we're talking about the 90% of decisions against the administration here.

It's not just.

Judges that were appointed by some Democratic president like the Biden or or Clinton or an Obama.

These are also even Reagan appointees.

Bush appointees that are a ruling against > > Maybe even some first term this.

point ease.

> > And I'm really glad you brought that up.

That to me that maybe the most important take away from what we've gathered.

It is this is across ideological lines.

It is not even close.

The Neenah now among Trump appointees, there is a divide that that's maybe the club, you know, but the still the majority of Trump appointees who ruled on this question have ruled against the administration.

I think it's still something like 60, 40 and and that's the best result of Trump's had a long judges appointed by a certain president and but, you know, it's it's overwhelming in terms of, you know, again, Reagan Bush Bush won Bush to an even first term.

Trump appointees have rejected this policy in large numbers.

> > We got some comments on a on YouTube and Facebook.

Obviously some people are.

You said ideological.

Some people are against undocumented migrants leaving here in the first places.

I imagine that the administration is in their stated policy.

One individual says suicide, YouTube y detain them just a port them.

Some folks are saying why would state spend any money on undocumented migrants?

I just saw that on Facebook.

> > So help me understand how you all are are what kind of rhetoric you're hearing from folks and how you might respond in terms of why this is an important thing for states to pay attention to here.

Sure.

> > I look at Supreme Court has established yet that.

> > People, whether they're here legally or illegally are entitled to some form of due process.

If they're before they can be deported.

> > And then out there, the Congress has drawn line.

They said if you are a new arrivals, you just cross the border apprehended.

You can be deported in a pretty you need to tame and deported in a pretty expedited way.

However, the law's always divided over people who have resided in the country.

The interior of the country for a longer period of time.

And that's really that at the heart here is that this administration wants to take those people who have long been treated differently under the law and at least given more opportunities to remain free in their communities, even if they're ultimately deported and a chance to challenge those their deportation proceedings.

in a different way.

And so this administration does and what we don't want them to have those same opportunities to challenge was going to tame them and and a quarter think that's the part that's illegal.

The part where you were used to differentiate recent border crossers for people in the country.

We're not entry.

Debate officially the same.

> > The work you've done on this is so extensive.

That's why I'm so glad that you guys are on the show and we're talking about this.

You mentioned earlier when we're talking about the law favoring people that have been residing here for a longtime and due process, many of these losses among underscore this again and these decisions, the these abs filings here.

These are folks that are saying we're not getting due process.

> > Exactly.

They're people who look at.

If they're essentially saying in no, do not know the process, they're being done.

It was lot of the judges are not ordering.

Then released into the community are saying this person should at least get a bond hearing should be able to talk to an immigration judge and say I am not dangerous and going to 10 migration receives.

I made him be deported at the end of them.

But in the meantime, and I'm going to sit in the facility, the detention going to be at home in my community with my family that my working and working in my job.

I don't have a criminal record.

I'm not a danger.

And that's that's really what with it with your sodas are saying we've got a bond hearing in a lot of these cases and sometimes they're getting released on bond and things are still being detained.

But they have the opportunity to plead their > > All right.

So we go to case.

political dot com.

We see this database.

There's 13,000 something rulings in there.

There's a nice graph things.

The things that people like me that are simple in nature like and will help them follow along.

Maybe we take that late June SI.

Estan were on vacation for a little bit.

When we come back on July 4th, what are going to be following?

> > After George?

So so what we're going to really relaunch its database to where we could actually Lincoln see the judges, individual rulings, which I think is actually really useful to see in their own words.

And that that tell the story that been detained.

I think that's the power to that.

And to me and it's helpful to understand who are the people who are being detained by July 4th, expect several more did circuits will have ruled on this.

And we may be on that path.

The Supreme Court and more clear way mention so it's going to be with us for at least the next few months.

This policy and that legal battle.

And so I think will be approaching that Supreme Court moment right around.

Then.

> > So happy to have you on the Wheelhouse this morning.

Again, folks can follow your work at Politico dot com Kyle Cheney.

The senior legal affairs reporter with Politico.

Thank you so much.

And thank you for your database.

Have a nice morning.

Thanks so much for having me.

After the break, we're going to get reaction from a former lawmaker in Connecticut will also talk to Connecticut Public, Latino communities.

Reporter Daniel don't sell about our coverage of undocumented migrants living in Connecticut got a question or comment.

Hit us up comment on our YouTube live stream or give us a call.

8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Let's work through some of these things together.

You know, we're talking about things we're asking you how far should lawmakers go here in Connecticut?

How far should federal lawmakers go when we're talking about attack undocumented migrants hit us up 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, or comment on a YouTube stream.

He's more Wheelhouse right after this.

And Connecticut Public.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We just heard about immigration policy within the Trump administration and arrests that are jamming up the federal court system.

Now we're continuing the conversation by turning our attention to Connecticut.

Joining us, our Daniela don't sell a Latino communities.

Reporter Connecticut Public Danielle, thank you so much for coming on here.

Thank you for having me.

Making your return on the Wheelhouse.

So excited to see you.

And thank you so much for your reporting.

Also with us this morning, Mike Lawler areas.

I haven't seen you in so long besides Facebook.

It's so good to see it back from a recent trip.

He's the associate dean of the University of New Haven is Henry, Sealy, College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences.

Also, the former under Secretary for Criminal justice policy in planning in Connecticut.

Also former state lawmaker in Connecticut as well out of East Haven.

I believe.

Mike, thanks so much for being here.

Hey, good morning, Frank.

E hey, good morning to you as well.

Hey, folks got thoughts on federal immigration policy.

Connecticut's responses have a conversation here today.

Hit us up comment on a YouTube livestream.

Give us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7, 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, just share your thoughts.

But just make sure you're sort of quick, you know, then we can talk about whatever.

But in the last segment we talked about federal judge's ruling against ICE detentions in a big way.

Mike, any reaction what we just heard from Kyle?

> > Yeah, I mean it when you see the actual numbers, it's pretty amazing.

But it's clearly part of a deliberate strategy to overwhelm the courts.

And, you know, I think more broadly, I think the Trump administration strategy is to that her people from trying to enter the United States based on the fact that if they get here, it's just going to be a nightmare they have to contend with.

And to some extent, I guess that's effective whether or not it's a good idea or appropriate policy.

You know, we can talk about.

> > And the thing is there's not a lot of nuance in this, right.

I mean, the stated policy from the beginning is and you'll hear Karoline Leavitt said a lot in White House meetings to hear come from Trump's mouth.

They say these undocumented migrants are here.

Alicia are here illegally and many of them should be treated as criminals.

That's stated position you know, originally.

> > Don't forget the during the campaign, especially a President.

Trump talked about targeting violent criminals right?

And we now know into about statistics.

We now know that less than 5% of all the people that they grabbed off the streets have been convicted of a violent crime and the vast majority of not been convicted of any crime.

you know so and some of them U.S.

citizens as well.

> > Well, yes, because, you know, the ice folks are not the most highly trained crowd.

That's for sure.

> > I mean, they don't wear uniforms.

They wear mask.

There's a reason they have masks on, you know, it's really troubling if you care about law enforcement.

A nice welcome work with local police.

A lot.

And I think they feel embarrassed by the behavior of these newly hired ICE agents who, you know, you know, looks like the neighborhood gang has come together to advance this policy.

So it has a lot of unintended consequences.

It has some intended consequences, but it's just bad public policy.

> > And following up on my what Mike said, there's that we've talked with a lot of reporters in recent years and and folks at the University of New Haven as well, pay attention to criminal justice.

When you're talking about crowd control, when you're talking about people may be protesting ice action or something like that.

What's preferred at least that particularly by state officials is that you would have local law enforcement dealing with some kind of a protest or some kind some kind of a protest against ICE action rather than National Guard troops or like ice enforcement officials kind of dealing and doing crowd control.

> > Yeah.

I police officers especially here in Connecticut are specifically training in de-escalation.

Right?

That's the goal it by watching the way ICE conducts itself on the streets of our cities.

Looks like they're trained and it's pretty clearly are trained in escalation.

I mean, you know, these confrontations were they giving contradictory orders to people?

You let me see your hands and show me your driver's license or get out of the car.

You know, and people get confused.

And that creates a problem.

You know, not to mention just the verbal back and forth between the ICE agents and the protesters.

I mean, you wouldn't see this from real police here in Connecticut, certainly in Connecticut, lawmakers have passed and the governor has now signed into > > Legislation in May that law.

seeks to curb ISIS presence in the state.

It's called an act concerning democracy and government accountability.

Can you talk a bit about the new law here?

Mike?

> > Yeah.

So this is building upon prior iterations, which date back almost 15 years now in our state.

We're trying to figure out the extent to which Connecticut and our law enforcement officers should be involved in immigration enforcement right?

most recent version, you know, to me like the most significant aspect of it is it people a right of private action.

They can sue a federal officer for violating their constitutional rights to the consumer in state court.

And that is significant, right?

And will it will take time for this to play out.

You know, there will come a time when we will know the identity of all of the federal officers unknown.

I was standing there masks, you know, a future admitted that means all public record right?

Names of a federal officers.

There are obscure now at some point the future will be able to go back and find out the names that everybody who was involved in each of these operations.

And we've got the advantage of video.

And so there will be people held accountable down the road personally and criminally for their behavior that that's a very significant change.

The other change in here is, you know, building upon prior efforts that delineate we're this enforcement action should be happening.

So not in school is not in church is not in hospitals, not and courthouse a sensitive location is the problem is even though a federal officer might be violating one of these laws, which might technically be a crime or a contempt of court.

Do we expect local police to take these federal officers into custody?

Because if they did that, they could be charged with interfering with federal officers, which is a federal crime.

So this is this is a dilemma that is confronting us now.

It's completely unnecessary you know, without.

Addressing too much.

I think the ultimate solution to this huge problem is too to reboot the entirety of U.S.

immigration policy.

You know, it is worth noting that in the pre-market here back when the GOP was the GOP.

There was a proposal in Congress to complete the reboot immigration policy spearheaded by of all people, Marco Rubio right had bipartisan support and it was killed by the House.

Republicans at the time in Congress right?

And if that Bill had passed.

We would not be seeing the problems.

Revenue would have a much better manage the immigration process.

People who had been here for years would have had a path to citizenship and they would make a lot of sense and would make America great again because back in the good old days when America was great, immigration was much different than it is today in terms of the regulatory oversight of procedures which are so it's impossible now to legally come to United States has a ordinary You've.

> > You've talked about people covering their faces as face masks.

Can you wear a face mask anymore?

If you're a federal law enforcement or at least addressed in the law?

> > Yeah, well, it's unlawful and the law.

But the question is, you know, the challenge for local law enforcement airs.

Are we going to arrest these guys right?

And because the minute you try to ensure in in response to local officers, we get arrested.

You know, people argue that if the federal officers are and knew him.

Because the federal government officials that they can't be prosecuted in state courts, that's actually not true.

We've seen a couple of federal officers in Minnesota be charged in the in the murders involving the folks that got shot and killed out there.

So it's complicated.

The procedures that govern the process are somewhat unique.

But yeah, you can be charged with a crime.

If you break a criminal law even though you're a federal officer, you can be prosecuted in state court.

> > We talk about face coverings.

We're even talking about now.

We're going to go into why you paid attention to this when you were a lawmaker here in Connecticut, they're sort of this.

air of mystery this cover of darkness in terms of ICE action here in Connecticut and beyond.

So let's talk about ICE detainers and that's kind of where this all gets carried out and why the state is trying to prevent certain arrests.

What's an ICE detainer and why might sit officials be concerned about them?

> > So ice detainers are simply request.

From ICE, which is part of Homeland security to hold a person who's already in custody, less in a local police station or one of our Department of Correction facilities.

It simply pictures the facts or an email saying, hey, you've got this guy in custody, hold him for us and don't release them, notify us and give us 48 hours to come and take the person into custody.

Right?

So that's an ICE detainer.

What it's not.

It's not a warrant signed by a judge to big difference.

And so this all began as a real I mean, I still 10 years of always existed what in 2011, 2012, 2013, the frequency of these detainers being issued really escalated.

And for those of you who pay attention to the political timeline, those dates I just mentioned were during the Obama admin.

I was going to say this predates Trump in Connecticut is where you have a situation where Democratic lawmakers > > targeted at least the way that the administration was handling these detainers.

So this is something that happens before Trump.

> > Yes, it definitely.

actually the without going to a lot of boring detail of try and make it simple here.

These there's a federal initiative called Secure Communities, which was initiated the very end.

President Bush's administration in 2008 President Obama comes into office.

They start this.

This policy starts to be implemented.

It's pretty technical, right?

It simply says that.

The FBI will share fingerprint information with Homeland Security because when somebody gets arrested anywhere in the country, typically they're fingerprinted.

Those fingerprints or electronically transmitted to the FBI and the FDA has them.

So they know people getting arrested in real time anywhere in the country makes perfect sense because, you know the new in place where we want to know the guy would just the rest of his you really who he says he is.

Does he have any warrants elsewhere in the country?

That type of thing?

Fbi began to share give access to the database to ICE and so ice with also find out everybody was arrested anywhere in the country in real time.

And that would allow them to issue a detainer request to a police department or of jail.

So where in the country said, hey, you've got this guy, don't really some hold him for us.

Let us know.

And we'll be there within 48 hours, right?

So those are detainer request and the problem that emerge here in Connecticut back in 2012, 2013 is that people became aware that if you get arrested.

Ice is going to find out about it in real time.

And the concern that we had this when I was working for Governor Malloy, the concern we had is if our large immigrant communities in Connecticut, whether they're here legally or not, whether they're citizens or not are going to be reluctant to reach out to the local police as a victim or is a witness for fear that that would also bring in the immigration police and, you know, many people have relatives or house mates or significant others are parent.

We may not be properly documented and so they wouldn't call.

And if people don't trust the police don't call the police to report crimes and then crime will go up and our goal was to have less crime.

And so we felt that we need to make it clear statement calling the local police in Connecticut is not the same as reaching out to the federal immigration.

Police want to have a clear distinction and that is that distinction has grown over time.

But that's where it all comes from.

And it's worth noting that the law that led to this the original trust act was passed unanimously in both houses of the Connecticut legislature in the Senate.

And the House, every single Republican, every single Democrat voted for and it's become a partisan issue.

More recently.

But back I'm president, apparently the Republicans are happy to vote for, including some of the primary leaders in the state house today.

Republican leaders also voted for this is a bipartisan effort to tackle crime really in Connecticut.

When you all did it.

> > there there's crime there.

But there's also this image and I don't mean to play into stereotypes here.

But I'm I'm feeling that you all are doing this because you're worried about the desktop with a desktop at like 2.30, in the morning being the arbiter of who's going to be fulfilled in a detainer request versus due process, right?

Is that like the concern that you guys have?

somebody somewhere is going to be deciding on a case here in getting ice involved, rather that some kind of due > > These detainer requests to process.

just issued by some random bureaucrat ice for who knows the and and it's been the case that they've issued these against people actually are citizens, too.

I mean, it's not a whole lot of oversight here.

lot of names are very similar, including people's dates of birth and stuff.

So it's fraught potential errors and it's over broad, obviously.

And so argument to If there's some serious criminal that you feel the need to take him into custody, go get a warrant signed by Judge, try.

I mean, police do this every single day.

It's not like complicated.

It's just a little bit more effort than sending an email at 2 o'clock in the morning.

And by the way.

When this is going on, we said, you know, it's public record who's in our custody.

You know, why don't you just monitor and then come and pick the guy up when he gets released and they literally said this is the ice folks back in 2013, 14.

That's it or people don't work on weekends.

So like that's not our problem.

That's your problem.

This is such a big priority.

Then figure out a way to do this is very public.

We're just not going to help you.

That's > > So we talked about all but all.

it up here.

But it leads to the trust act in Connecticut.

All this work that you're doing in 2013.

What did you all do?

So the trunk that passes, you said unanimously.

But what did it do?

> > The law?

Yeah.

So the original version from 2013 said that, you know, we will not hold people.

Beyond that.

I'm you know, their post bond to their sentences over.

They're going to be released and we're not gonna hold them an extra 48 hours based on a detainer right?

This is the 4th Amendment issues in there, too.

And so that's basically what it said over time.

There was a concern that, you maybe a law enforcement agency probation prosecutors, corrections, we'd be on their own, reaching out to ISO.

Then it was clarified that what you can't you know, we added to the list of law enforcement officials who are not allowed to reach out to ice and sort of dying people out.

And then ultimately we said that no state resources can be expended assist ice in enforcing federal immigration law.

This did progress over time.

Initially, it was just to say we're not going on of these ICE detainers.

You want to get the guy either go to war or be there when it gets really stunned there are exceptions.

It's important to point out there are exceptions for people convicted of serious violent crimes.

People on the terrorist watch list.

What we found.

Other people getting arrested for minor sort of domestic violence.

Tough, shoplifting, a drunk driving.

You know, these people are all of a sudden finding themselves in ICE detention and being deported, leaving behind their families.

In many cases and and, you know, just just thinking of for second, you are the spouse of somebody who was an document that and you and there's a domestic violence incident that would lead to an arrest.

You're not going to call the police.

Because you don't want your, you know, even though you're an argument you don't want your significant other to be deported because you might be the breadwinner of the family and its this kind of thing that local police reported to us as a > > But it sounds like you're put out.

kind of pushing back against the notion that violent criminals violent, undocumented migrants, if they are in this country, your is sort of pushing back and saying that no one's really protecting them as somebody might assert.

> > But our looks politically takes them out of the you know, they're not protected by anything in the trust act.

That's for sure.

Right.

And and we are.

But there are some people need to be incarcerated and there's some people need to be removed from the country.

It is, you know, is worth noting that some of his lot of attention to the criminal justice system that someone commits a serious violent crime in Connecticut should be locked up as a prisoner for a long time in Connecticut.

They shouldn't be sent back to their home country where they're going to be free with the possibility of re-entering the nights.

I mean, it's crazy right?

And so we think our policy works.

It does not violate any federal interestingly, when Trump came into office the first time he said that Connecticut was a sanctuary state where violating federal law does going to withhold or grants.

And, you know, fast forward a little bit, Jeff Sessions with the time was Trump's attorney general said congratulations, Connecticut, for following federal law because nothing we do violates federal said that.

But he didn't say that at first city.

> > Or at least policy there or go for style of dealing with yes, we push backs like, yeah, you can tell us which federal law you claim or violating.

And of course we're not.

And it's what you mean by sanctuary state.

Couldn't defined that.

So it's I mean, obviously, this is a lot of politics involved here.

It's it's a lot of and I immigrant bigotry, which is got a long history in this country.

You know, my ancestors came here from Ireland in 18 50's and 60's.

They were on the receiving end of the same kind of stuff.

So > > it's it's just it's different.

Now because it could be more.

> > the the technical machinery to do this stuff is more elaborate than it used to be.

> > Micah got to bring in Daniel and a second before I do that.

I just want you to get to kind of what you're alluding to, which is that in 2019, I think there's some changes to the or at least some updates to the trust act.

You know that.

> > That there was a path, you know, each year that went by, it was possible to identify innocent little polls and the trust act.

So it was expanded from the original version which passed unanimously 2019.

Now Trump is in office.

This is where it's live.

It's legislated that you cannot nice.

The state resources to enforce immigration laws with a couple of narrow exceptions.

And now more recently and the last couple of years you see the additions that basically govern how ice can conduct themselves in the state.

For example, no masks and that type of thing and end.

> > Technically this year's law, Daniel in 2026, the one that passes is not an update to the trust act.

We know that several of these laws have been iterations that have built up on it.

This does sort of in nature, the one that passed this year last year, there were actual updates to the trust act that you all covered.

> > Yeah, there was.

And we saw, you know, I think Mike covered it beautifully.

And the idea that it's been just a lot of expanding of this trust act to make sure that it's covering all those loopholes.

You know, it says like no state resources are allowed to be used for ice enforcement activity that includes it's been expanded.

You know, so now all state municipal employees and criminal prosecutors are within this law.

They cannot comply.

For example, you mentioned you can now file a lawsuit if any police department, for example, or any town is, you know, violating the trust act in any way in.

And we'll see that throughout the year.

See how that plays out.

And this was significant because before there was no real penalty, if police violated the trust back.

So that was a really big change.

And also on the flip side, there were more crimes that were added to the trust act.

> > Violent crimes, things Connecticut Republicans really wanted to see added to make sure that they were that law enforcement could comply with detainers in terms of the specific people regarding the specific crimes.

> > You're talking advocates.

What are they saying about policy and the need to update state laws in response to these sort of aggressive immigration tactics of the second Trump administration.

Now that we're talking about Trump to point out.

> > Yeah.

I mean of one of the biggest things that they wanted was protections around courthouse is a lot of advocates are seeing that the courthouse is where a big kind of big place for ICE agents to be at and to kind of monitor.

So they really wanted these protections which they saw last year.

Lawmakers did pass laws that ensure that there were no arrests being taken place inside or around court houses after saying actual instances of that happening.

But they want more right?

They want to make sure that there are other protections in place around courthouse.

So, for example, making sure that people can do virtual court proceedings and hearings is the same way that was done during COVID right to allow people who are fearful of going to these places to be able to do that in that capacity.

For example, we also have the issue of automated plate recognition systems.

They want to make sure that, you know, government enforcement agencies can't use those to track vehicles.

And, you know, in the capacity of of of ICE agents for example, and they also just want to see increased support rate, affordable housing, affordable health care childcare.

Just anything that can help even ease the daily lives of immigrants within our state.

They want to know because these are people that are feet facing these fears and facing these, you know, situations in which they don't know if they can even leave their homes.

So who are you mean out in the field that's fighting for migrants?

Who are the players nowadays?

And what are they saying about their work?

> > So we need with a lot of different groups, you know, make the road, Connecticut and, you know, let the 9 action on a new heaven.

Her for deportation, defensed reunites for immigrant.

There's a lot of really great immigrant lead groups across the state that are doing a lot of great work and from speaking with some of the members of these groups, a lot of what they're saying is, you know, the work is honestly getting tougher, right?

There's a lot that's still needed.

There was a lot of great support when it comes to rallies and protests and gatherings.

But when it comes to LA a lot of the behind the scenes things right.

So actually helping out these families, rapid response teams that kind of thing they are.

They need more volunteers and they need more funding as well.

I talked to Mike earlier > > now the specter of National Guard National Guard.

Officers or federal law enforcement, a potentially being at some of these events.

So is that a concern that people have that they're sort of dealing with people that could potentially escalate a crowd.

> > It's definitely a concern, though.

It's not something that I'm hearing too much within the circles.

It's not something that we see in Connecticut often, right.

But even earlier this year, we these we did see an instance where there was an encounter with ice during one of these protests right here in Hartford, where unfortunately there was a pepper spray incident and that was something that people still talk about and are kind of comments of when they go to new gatherings for these types of things.

So I think it's something that's in the back of people's minds at the very least.

> > I'm going to have you and Mike, stay with us after the segment.

Before we go to break, I just want remark on one of the stories that you have where.

In this time where a lot of people are focusing on language like don't fight back when you're in a protest or something like that or know your rights and things like that.

And it's a particularly tough time, as you said, that people are saying that the work is tougher.

Joy is something that you've covered and that's part of the mission here for advocates.

How are you?

How are they a mixing in an element of funding this work at a time?

That's some serious.

> > So absolutely.

I mean, every conversation I've had with an advocate, joy always comes up because this is not something this is not a 9 to 5, right?

This is and this is a work that happens throughout the day where people are constantly kind of on call, making sure that when something happens, they're there.

I recently uncovered a a photo exhibit from a youth committee with her for deportation defense where they were kind of highlighting the history.

The Long 10 year history of this organization and many of the photos were a very difficult times for many of the photos were of joy of people dancing.

> > Doing activities together, spending time in community when it's talked to the photographer of the exhibit, Adrian Montero, he told me, you know, it was very important to him to make sure that that joy was part of this exhibit as well to show that like people are still making sure that during these difficult times joint is never being deprioritized are put in the back burner.

> > From Connecticut Public, this is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

You're listening to Connecticut Public.

reporter Daniel don't sell.

And former state lawmaker Mike Lawler, the parrot with us to talk about rights, extended to undocumented migrants living in Connecticut.

After the break, we'll talk about a new law passed in Connecticut, extending the protections.

Migrants are offered here.

Questions on what you heard thus far hit us up.

Don't go anywhere.

There's more Wheelhouse.

Next on Connecticut Public.

♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We're talking about immigration reform efforts in Connecticut this week.

Next week.

Stay tuned.

We're going to dig into the economy and how local communities are responding to rising costs.

The summer.

As we continue today show.

Still with us to talk about rights, extended to undocumented migrants living here in Connecticut.

Daniela Don Cell is a Latino communities reporter at Connecticut Public.

Thank you so much for being here, Daniel and Mike Lawler associate dean of the University of New Havens, Henry, Sealy, College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences.

We're going to do this in like 4 or 5 minutes here.

I got a few questions for you all your b*** story that our colleague, Rachel Yaacov on a road about a Bridgeport father and son who were stopped by federal immigration officials on the way to school.

What can you tell about us about this case and wide support in the context of what we're talking about today?

> > Yeah, absolutely.

So regional covered the story.

It was a case of a 16 year-old son and his father.

They were in the car waiting for a school bus on Friday morning when ICE detention, ICE officers came to detain the father essentially and from a ICE spokesperson.

We did learn that they were there to arrest the father due to a they had a warrant for his arrest because of the fact he had entered the country illegally back in 22,005 and was ordered to leave the country and the officers were there to make sure that not only was taken, but that the sun was given a chance to go home with the mother.

So they gave the Mets a father a chance to call mom, make sure she can come grab the kid.

But then he was taken.

But at the same time, there was a great community support around The representatives was able to contact Senator Richard Blumenthal.

See what next steps could be taken.

Make the roads sent out.

Their rapid response team to go out there to provide support for the family.

But really what this did was highlight a situation that was already happening in the City of Bridgeport, which was that.

> > There's a lot of a big uptick, essentially an ice enforcement there.

> > And something that you're talking about is the support that people might have in the community.

You also introduced us, you and your reporting introduce history on in Chester.

> > Yes, Re Khan.

Was it?

very incredible case in the sense that this was something that was shocking.

So Rihanna is a teen who was taken on announced there was no announcement of this happening.

He was taken while he was in his uncle's car and and he was held in detention in Massachusetts for a couple of weeks.

The crazy thing about him that I think is most important to know is that his family is here under humanitarian parole.

So there are here legally.

There's no reason for him to be taken.

And the reason they're under parole is because of his father's father worked as an interpreter for the U.S.

Armed forces and his father years back also was taken by eyes at one point.

So it was, but a lot of people were saying, you know, this family is being targeted, why they're being targeted.

Thankfully, we did get to Siri on come home, but it was it was a shocking situation which we are saying this this taking place, even for people who are here with documentation, he was remained and he remained in detention for like 2 weeks.

Yeah, some people pointed out.

I think it was Attorney General William Tong that did that said that I was relatively short.

> > Some people are help from for months.

Why did we see sort of this difference in this case?

> > But the thing is, is that > > immigration law just in general is very, very complicated.

So everything is kind of on a case-by-case basis with someone like me.

Han had a lot of outpouring support.

A lot of high profile individuals that we can help helping his case and the attorney that he has been able kind of use based on his situation, what basically was able to get him into a court hearing that would allow him to leave the detention facility, however, to be very clear, this does not mean that he is, you know, he's in the clear essentially he deep.

He was released on bond, but he is still kind of in these removal proceedings by the United States to be despite the administrative air right?

Exactly.

So that there's still a long way to go for him.

But at the very least he can be home while these proceedings are happening > > I want you to pay attention to Daniels reporting.

I can't ask for any more questions.

We're out of time here.

But I want to ask about Mike One more before we go.

But you all are doing a documentary, as I understand it, you can tell us much about it, but I know that it's coming.

It is coming.

We're working on a mini documentary.

A documentary looking specifically at how ICE is impacting Connecticut youth.

So you can keep an eye out for that.

Hopefully coming out, DOT org.

Absolutely.

Scotus season, Mike, we know the decisions may come down this month as they generally do and we don't know when, but they will at some point.

> > We talked earlier today about how this in the words of political reporter Kyle Changelly time.

Cheney almost certainly come up in the Supreme Court.

Dozens of cases for justices to rule on and reports saying the President Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to children born from undocumented migrants will get a ruling.

What are you hearing what you pay attention to?

At least.

> > So I think any ruling from the Supreme Court is going to be pretty narrow and technical.

you know, they're not going to say that President Trump can't do anything he's doing the the issue about the birthright citizenship.

You know, the Constitution's absolutely clear on this.

Should the Supreme Court ruled the other way, which seems unlikely it would be like, you know, and then all bets were off, I think.

But, you know, I want to say one thing, Frankie, though, I'm actually a little bit optimistic because if you look at the public opinion polls that the way people view now with the Trump, his administration has done with immigration enforcement.

It's extremely unpopular, especially among certainly Democrats but also unaffiliated voters.

I think this is helping to build the case comprehensive immigration reform.

Once the Trump administration comes to an end and the Congress changes over.

I'm actually optimistic.

We'll get the on this.

You believe you've been listening to Mike Lawler, the associate dean of the Henry, Sealy, College of Criminal Justice of Forensic Sciences at the University of New > > Thank you so much, Mike.

Haven.

Any time for thank you.

Daniela covering Latino communities in Connecticut catcher work in CD public out of work for this week's show.

Don't Miss next week's show.

As we discussed the economy, politics and the local reaction to rising costs in Connecticut.

Thank you to Chloe.

When Patrick's Cahill doing race and the rest of the team, this is the Wheelhouse on Frankie Graziano.

Thank you.