Michigan Immigration Accountability Bills Move to Senate Floor After Committee Passage

Three Bills Aim to Limit Federal Immigration Enforcement in Michigan

Three Senate bills seeking to limit the actions of federal immigration agents in Michigan have moved to the Senate floor following passage by the Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee.

The legislation package includes:

• Senate Bill 508 would designate certain publicly funded spaces like courthouses, schools, hospitals, and places of worship as immigration-enforcement-free zones. Under the bill, these locations would prohibit immigration enforcement activity unless accompanied by a valid judicial warrant.

• Senate Bill 509 would prohibit state agencies from providing individuals' personal information for immigration enforcement purposes without a judicial warrant.

• Senate Bill 510 would prohibit all on-duty law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings that conceal their identity while interacting with the public, with limited exceptions for protection from facial injuries or airborne pathogens. The bill also requires officers to wear their standard uniform.

All three bills were sponsored by Democrats and passed along party lines by the Senate committee.

Concerns About Climate of Fear

Testimony during the committee hearings highlighted concerns that aggressive immigration enforcement has created a climate of fear in Michigan communities. Jeni Hooper, with First Step, a shelter for survivors of sexual and domestic violence in Wayne County, told the committee that the fear of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has disrupted services to victims.

"When safe spaces, like domestic violence agencies, shelters, schools, courts and schools are not clearly protected, survivors face an impossible choice," Hooper said.

Detroit council member Gabriela Santiago-Romero stated that one school in Detroit has seen attendance decline by 50 percent in the past year, attributing the drop partly to the presence of immigration enforcement agents in schools.

Opposition From Immigration Advocates

Shari Rendall with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, testified against the bills. She said the legislation demonizes and incites violence against immigration officers.

"Courthouses are not sensitive locations," Rendall said. "ICE knows that individuals in locations like a courthouse are unarmed. It is safer for the individual, it is safer for law enforcement, it is safer for the public for them to take someone into custody there."

FAIR is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Republican Pushback

Senator Jim Runestad, a Republican from White Lake who also chairs the Michigan Republican Party, was repeatedly cut off by the committee's Democratic chair for trying to debate immigration policy with witnesses. He called the hearing a one-sided "kangaroo court."

Runestad argued the bills would likely be found unconstitutional if enacted because the state cannot preempt federal authority.

Law Enforcement Perspectives

Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon testified that masked officers undermine faith in law enforcement. "They can basically do what they want to and the people of that respective community do not know who they are," McKinnon said. "This is scary."

The bill that would ban law enforcement officers from wearing a mask or disguise while on duty includes exceptions for protection from facial injuries or airborne pathogens or toxins. The ban would not apply to officers on an undercover assignment.

Next Steps

It is not clear when the bills might be sent to the Senate floor for a vote. Committee chair Stephanie Chang, a Democrat from Detroit, said there will be more hearings on the legislation and she would like to see votes as soon as possible.

The bills address what supporters describe as constitutional violations and accountability breakdowns in federal immigration enforcement. SB 508-510, according to proponents, will put enforcement back within constitutional boundaries by requiring warrants, proper identification, and judicial oversight before state data can be shared.