An act relating to authorization to enter into certain immigration agreements
S.44 amends Vermont law governing who may authorize certain immigration-related agreements with federal authorities. The bill provides that, notwithstanding other law, only the Governor, in consultation with the Vermont Attorney General, may enter into, modify, or extend agreements under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) or 19 U.S.C. § 1401(i), which are federal provisions commonly associated with agreements that allow state or local officers to assist in immigration enforcement or customs-related functions.
The bill also creates a narrow exception allowing a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency to enter into such an agreement when needed to address threats to public safety or welfare arising from a declared state or national emergency. It further states that no public agency, or its officers, employees, agents, or contractors, may enter into these agreements unless the Governor has authorized them as specified in the statute. The act takes effect on passage.
This bill narrows and centralizes authority in Vermont for entering into immigration-related cooperation agreements with federal agencies, shifting control to the Governor with consultation from the Attorney General. It limits the ability of state and local public agencies to independently negotiate or implement such agreements, while preserving a limited emergency exception for law enforcement agencies responding to public safety or welfare threats during declared emergencies. The measure amends 20 V.S.A. § 4652 and affects state, county, and municipal agencies that might otherwise participate in these federal agreements.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, passing the Vermont Senate on third reading by a wide margin of 29-1. No committee transcript is available, but the strong vote indicates broad agreement with the bill’s approach to centralizing authorization and limiting local agency discretion, with only minimal opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between state control and local flexibility in immigration-related enforcement agreements. Supporters appear to favor requiring gubernatorial approval and Attorney General consultation to ensure consistent statewide oversight, while the narrow dissent suggests at least one senator objected to either the restriction on local agency authority or the scope of the emergency exception. The bill’s carveout for declared emergencies may also reflect an effort to address concerns about public safety and operational needs without broadly expanding local authority.