Bill meant to curb immigration enforcement efforts in Utah stalls in committee

SALT LAKE CITY — A measure put forward by a Democratic lawmaker to temper the activity of immigration enforcement agents in Utah spurred debate Tuesday on the red-hot topic, a focus of nationwide discussion.

Ultimately, though, SB136 stalled, with the Utah Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee voting 6-3 to table the issue, possibly the last time it'll get attention. To see continued debate, two-thirds of the committee would have to vote to revive the bill at a future meeting, likely a tall order given the skepticism the measure generated from the committee's GOP lawmakers, who hold a majority on the body.

"I think this goes in the wrong direction," said Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, referencing the limits the measure would place on the ability of local and state law enforcement to work with federal immigration agents. "We need more cooperation."

Brammer labeled the measure, put forward by Sen. Nate Blouin, D-Millcreek, "a statement bill."

Coming amid the backdrop of heightened activity nationwide by federal immigration agents to detain and deport immigrants in the country illegally, a priority of President Donald Trump, Blouin's measure meant to partially put the brakes on the action in Utah. While many support the efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, others view the action as too aggressive.

SB136 would limit immigration agents' access to nonpublic areas of state courthouses and certain health care facilities. It would also limit the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to assist federal agents carrying out enforcement operations in churches, hospitals, courthouses and other "sensitive" sites. Finally, the bill would put strict limits on the ability of federal immigration agents to use face coverings when carrying out enforcement actions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have increasingly used masks in their enforcement activities around the country.

The measure "ensures that we don't use state resources, that we don't use state personnel or funding to amplify federal enforcement efforts actions that are creating fear," said Blouin, also running for the 1st District seat in the U.S. House. "They're raising constitutional concerns that are undermining community trust. I've been in many different locations lately where folks have raised this concern of federal law enforcement running roughshod in our communities in all sorts of circumstances."

Critics of the measure, though, said it would undermine efforts to foster cooperation between local and state law enforcement and their federal counterparts.

While it may contain some exceptions allowing for some cooperative efforts among law enforcement officials, "this is a bill that says, 'Don't work together,'" said Sen. Michael McKell, R-Spanish Fork. "I don't know why we would message that we don't want our law enforcement officials working together. We live in a divided nation, and it's not OK, and we need our law enforcement community, both federal and state, working together."

Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith, opposed to the bill, said cooperation among local, state and federal law enforcement officials has prevented the sort of upheaval impacting Minnesota. The Trump administration has bolstered the number of federal agents in Minnesota, prompting backlash and demonstrating by critics who see the uptick as heavy-handed

The provision prohibiting agents from using masks except in limited circumstances prompted a lot of attention from those who spoke out on the issue during a public comment period. Foes said some agents identifiable to critics have faced backlash and that wearing coverings gives them a measure of protection. Supporters of limits on mask use said removing coverings would represent a step toward transparency.

Beyond that, critics of the bill said it would hamper efforts to pursue immigrants with criminal records, threatening the safety of the broader public. Supporters, meantime, said the crackdown, as it is currently being carried out, is creating an unnecessary climate of fear within immigrant communities, arguing that HB136 would represent a step back from that.

Related topics