Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.
[T]he Vermont State Legislature is about to pass a bill that attracted an enormous amount of attention even though it is far more symbol than substance and is likely to do little more than express the outlook of most Vermonters.
So there’s no point to S.79, the bill that seeks to prevent state and local policy from cooperating with federal immigration raids?
Sure there is. The bill is a serious response to a serious situation.
But its seriousness results less from what it does than from what it says. Its actual impact on governing will range somewhere between minimal and non-existent. The statement it makes – what Gov. Phil Scott called its “comforting message” – could have real consequences.
That comfort is first of all to the estimated 1,000 Mexicans working on Vermont dairy farms (and of course to the farmers who depend on them). The message is: when it comes to you, Vermont does not agree with President Donald Trump, who seems to want to deport as many workers who are here without proper authorization as possible. We want you to stay, and we’ll do what we can to help you.
As Scott acknowledged, if the federal government is really intent on tracking down and deporting those immigrants, Vermont can’t do much to help them. It can do a little, and it can make a statement.
That statement is not worthless because symbols and statements are legitimate and necessary functions of governing in a democracy.
When it comes to immigration policy, symbolism has been substantial for years. Consider the description above of those workers being “here without proper authorization.”
Kind of awkward, isn’t it? Why not just say they are here “illegally” That’s how they used to be described – as “illegal aliens.”
If the federal government is really intent on tracking down and deporting immigrants, Vermont can’t do much to help them.
That term is accurate, but unnecessarily insulting. Legally, an alien is simply a person who is not a citizen of the country in which he or she is located. A Canadian in Burlington shopping for the day is an alien. But because of its other uses – just think of “alienating” – the word has denigrating connotations.
And while there are people who have committed illegal acts, there is no such thing as an illegal person.
So “illegal alien” has been largely replaced by “undocumented worker,” or some variant. Political correctness? Perhaps, but in this case a sensible way to avoid belittling some of the people who live around you and on whom you depend.
[T]here is little doubt that S.79 will become law. It has tri-partisan support. It was co-sponsored by the Senate’s Progressive/Democratic President Pro Tem Tim Ashe of Burlington and Republican Minority Leader Dustin Degree of St. Albans. In the House, some Republicans will oppose it, but not nearly enough to stop it. Scott will sign it, probably in public.
At that moment, the state of Vermont as an entity will be proclaiming its opposition to the president’s immigration policies and its solidarity with the migrant workers who keep the state’s dairy farms (and no doubt a few restaurants and hotels) in business.
And that’s mostly – though not entirely – all it will be doing. For all the enthusiasm (and intense if minimal opposition) it has generated, S.79 doesn’t do much.
It’s only about a thousand words, almost half of which is feel-good boilerplate regurgitating such banalities as, “Vermont must uphold the protection of religious freedom…for all its people.”
Then come 83 words forbidding any government agency or official, from doing anything that might facilitate “the purpose of registration” of any person according to (among other characteristics) religion. That’s to resist any effort by the federal government to create a nationwide registry of Muslims.
There is no such federal effort.
On several occasions during the campaign, Trump rejected, evaded, or ignored opportunities to deny that he favored any such thing. But then he never came out clearly and said that he did favor such a thing, either. A Muslim registry would single out members of a religion. “Single out” is another way of saying “discriminate against,” meaning any such plan would face substantial constitutional complications.
The next 92 words make clear what the new law will not do: prevent any person or agency from enforcing the law.
Finally, seven lines from the end of the 77-line measure, comes a 41-word section that says “only the Governor may enter into a memorandum of agreement” in connection with two relevant federal laws.
At long last – substance. This section means that only the governor – not a county sheriff or city police chief or mayor – would be permitted to enter into an official agreement in which state or local police formally cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement.
[T]he bill would not prohibit informal law enforcement cooperation between local and federal officials. It would not stop the feds from hiring local cops for part-time gigs to help patrol the border.
Some Vermont conservatives oppose S.79. Some liberals, led by the Vermont ACLU want to add a provision requiring all law enforcement agencies in the state to adopt a “fair and impartial policing” policy.
Returning the discussion to symbolism and the parsing of language. Fair and Impartial Policing is a nationwide, scientifically-based effort by many law enforcement agencies to combat the unconscious bias which could affect the judgment of even a fair-minded police officer.
But that’s not really what it means in connection with Vermont’s Mexican dairy workers. It means if a cop comes into contact with someone who looks Mexican but who is not suspected of committing a crime, the cop won’t ask for any proof of citizenship.
That’s enlightened because it prevents racial profiling. But it’s neither fair nor unfair, and if anything, it’s partial – to the undocumented immigrants.
Partial and sensible. People should not be afraid to cooperate with the police. But these labels don’t have to be taken literally.
