From media partner Chris Powell who has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years
Hearings of the General Assembly on proposed legislation almost always could use more critical questions, especially when such questions are not merely politically inconvenient but politically incorrect.
Such was the case the other day when scores of open-borders advocates spoke at the Judiciary Committee’s hearing on legislation proposed by Governor Lamont for more obstruction of immigration law, though the governor, Attorney General William Tong, and most Democratic state legislators keep denying that Connecticut is a “sanctuary state.”
The governor’s legislation would establish “protected areas” where Connecticut would pretend that immigration law enforcement is prohibited — places like schools, hospitals, and churches.
Perhaps most deserving a critical question or two at the hearing was Norma Martinez HoSang, director of the Connecticut for All Coalition, an alliance of open-borders groups. HoSang said: “Families should be able to pray at church services, attend community meals or mosques or synagogues, and gather for holiday celebrations without worrying that law enforcement actions are outside the door. Patients should feel safe going to hospitals for emergency treatment, taking their children to pediatric checkups, or visiting community health clinics for vaccinations and prenatal care.”
No legislator asked simply: Why should someone breaking the law feel safe? Why should someone residing in the country illegally be exempt from immigration law enforcement anywhere?
People who have committed other crimes enjoy no such exemption from arrest. Indeed, anyone who testified at a legislative hearing that suspects in murders, assaults, robberies, or thefts should be exempt from arrest at particular places would be considered ridiculous. Maybe that’s why Connecticut has no law establishing “protected areas” where arresting people is itself a crime.
These “protected areas” are being proposed in Connecticut only to legitimize or facilitate illegal immigration, or, since federal immigration agents are not obliged to respect state-declared “protected areas,” they are being proposed just to strike a politically correct pose.
Connecticut and the country have so much illegal immigration — and have so much crime committed by illegal immigrants, even if, on average, illegal immigrants are better behaved than the native-born — precisely because the country generally and Connecticut in particular are viewed, or until recently were viewed, as being “protected areas.” That is, “sanctuary states.”
Not long ago even leading Democrats acknowledged that a major inducement for illegal immigration was the prospect of receiving government services, including housing, medical care, and education, and even driver’s licenses and other official forms of identification without having to attain citizenship or legal residency.
This prospect became even more of an inducement under the previous national administration when most immigration law enforcement was suspended and millions of people were admitted without review, just told to attend an immigration court hearing at a distant date, whereupon they disappeared into the country and never appeared for their hearings.
Illegal immigrants would not have the fear cited by HoSang and other advocates of open borders — would not have to worry about being hunted — if proof of citizenship or legal residency was required from anyone seeking employment, schooling, housing, medical care, or anything else important in the United States. Living in the country illegally would be too impractical. Illegal immigration has been so easy and extensive only because, through mistaken compassion or political subversion, public policy facilitates it.
If government stops facilitating illegal immigration there will be much less of it. There already is much less now that the new federal administration has re-imposed ordinary control at the border.
Fear of being caught for violating immigration law can justify enacting “protected areas” only if one believes that anyone should be admitted to the country at any time and, if he reaches Connecticut, should be exempt from immigration law enforcement. “Protected areas” can be justified only if one believes that people who fear open borders and resent the crimes committed by illegal immigrants should just pound sand.
With his legislation Governor Lamont has become an enthusiastic nullifier of federal law and advocate of open borders.
Will anyone running against him make an issue of it?
If we were asked to point to the confused contributor to a variety of the migration issues, I will guess that most fingers would be aimed at President Trump who has exercised his voice and intimidation antics at politicians as well as just folks to fail to efficiently allow Congress to provide a fair, just, and efficient way of dealing with those at our borders whether they come for business, education, vacation, refugee reasons or because the US had come to be a beacon of light welcoming most of American citizens today, though perhaps after reading history, at all times!
If the pointer finger was on President Trump, perhaps some will shake a finger at Congress as well. When will they understand that they have a major hand to resolve the chaos. We vote folks into office for a variety of reasons including the ability to attend to the US Constitution, provide quality administration of processes, exhibit caring and respect for folks with more vulnerability and less official power, and the practice of genuine accountability for personal practices including fiscal accountability for personal acts. Time will tell.
But I also wrote comments on -MIGRANTS, IMMIGRANTS and CITIZENS:
Migrants, people born outside US borders searching for work and personal safety, respond to the ‘American opportunity narrative:’ the offer of rights is both available and remains attractive to folks willing to work hard, follow rules, educate their family, and participate in self-governance activity today.
Migrants become immigrants when they cross a border and it is a US responsibility to organize and operate a lawful ‘due process’ with them while they respond to a full communication of the process. Congress, for years now, has left us without a current compromise to deal with this situation. Actual citizens are misidentified as ‘terrorists’ and die. Family separations continue. Lives get spent in captivity. Precious years that can provide new energy and potential genius from diverse people working together are lost to our gross national product. Jobs go begging.
Why are we labeling citizens born here, as well as more recent neighbors living and working, while raising families, paying taxes and obeying laws, as targets for a poorly trained, faceless, and secret ‘policing force’ who overreach legal enforcement limits and intimidate all whom they meet? Is the purpose to target millions of individuals to whom the administration stands ill-prepared to serve diligently by providing a process of preparing for future citizens of their potential responsibilities or holding them accountable to the law while acknowledging rights? Or is the purpose to exhibit the raw power to capture, restrain, and detain (with no explanation to family or from media interest), the lives of former migrants to a vast confinement that has had no approval of higher current expenses from taxpayers than is ever admitted. Where are hatred and violence revealed now?
My father, a migrant, came to CT at age 19 with no secondary degree. But he found his feet, pursued an accounting education, and served the State of CT Banking commission for years into WWII. What is the difference faced by migrants at this moment from his entry through Ellis Island with three siblings and his parents? They found a different reception than that by the administration today. Is that situation approved by voices and ballots of a majority of voters today? Time will tell.
I swear right wing nuts would deport Joseph and Mary. Jesus was an anchor baby. My public testimony.
My name is Joseph Sokolovic, Vice Chair of the Bridgeport Board of Education, writing mostly in an individual capacity. I submit this testimony in strong support of SB91, HB 5448, and SB5449. I believe deeply that Connecticut’s promise of public education only means something if it is real for every child who walks through our doors.
Connecticut has a clear legal and Christian obligation to educate all children residing in this state, regardless of immigration status. Yet this obligation is undermined whenever fear determines whether families feel safe enrolling their children, attending school meetings, seeking help, or simply showing up. A right that exists only on paper is not a right at all.
To understand what that fear looks like, imagine Jesus born today.
Imagine a very pregnant Mary and Joseph fleeing persecution, on foot for fear of their donkey being tracked by an eye in the sky. Imagine Mary, and Joseph arriving in Connecticut believing they have finally found safety. Instead, fear follows them into every decision they make.
Imagine Mary, afraid to enter a hospital because she worries that seeking medical care could expose her family to immigration enforcement. She avoids care, carries her pregnancy alone, and gives birth outside a medical setting rather than risk being seen. No child in Connecticut should ever enter the world under those conditions.
Imagine Mary and Joseph witnessing a violent assault in their neighborhood. They want to help. They want justice. But fear stops them—fear that coming forward could lead to separation from Jesus. Silence replaces trust, and public safety suffers as a result.
Now imagine Jesus growing up in that environment. He is bright, curious, and eager to belong. Yet he begins to withdraw. He avoids school events, youth programs, and even church, because places meant to offer safety now feel dangerous. When a child is afraid to enter a school, a clinic, or a faith community, something has broken.
We see the consequences of this fear every day. It shows up as increased chronic absenteeism, anxiety, and trauma. Learning cannot happen when children are in survival mode.
That is why SB 91 matters. By drawing clear boundaries around protected areas, especially schools, it ensures that civil immigration enforcement does not undermine education, public health, or basic human dignity. This is not about interfering with criminal law enforcement. It is about protecting the institutions children depend on to learn and grow.
HB 5449 strengthens this work by limiting surveillance and data practices that drive families away from public institutions, including schools. HB 5448 adds transparency and accountability so families can trust that enforcement is lawful and visible.
Together, these bills align Connecticut’s enforcement practices with its obligation to uphold basic human rights. No family should have to choose between safety and visibility. No child—no Jesus born today—should live in fear.
Education equity depends on stability, trust, and safety. These bills help provide all three far beyond education. I urge their favorable consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Sokolovic
Member, Board of Education
Congress should be hanging their heads in shame for how they have failed on immigration. The Biden administration took that cowardly inaction and doubled down. By so doing, they made a terrible situation far, far worse.
Connecticut is just putting lipstick on a pig with this proposed legislation. Powell is correct.
Business desire for cheap labor, augmented by political contributions is the primary motivation for not addressing immigration. (See any similarities with offshoring manufacturing?) That, and the Democrats’ belief that “Demographics is Destiny”. The more illegals, the better for Democrat elective ambitions, whether it is a general amnesty or just increased Congressional representation.
.
Obviously, we can halt illegal immigration by enforcing the same laws followed by Trump and ignored by Biden. Following the law and using eVerfication would fix the problem.
We are hypocrities, myself included. If we wanted the problem fixed, we would be paying higher prices at restaurants, construction, daycare, etc. Instead, we reap the benefit of immigrant insecurity, thus lower cost.
Congress needs to address the issue along the following lines:
1. Come up with a plan that awards a permanent Green Card to those hard-working, good people who broke the law by trying to better their lives. They would never vote, although they would reap all other benefits. It also enables these illegals to be paid fair wages and benefits.
2. Eliminate the anchor baby policy. Grandfather for a certain period, but afterwards, no more. This removes a motivating factor.
3. Mandate and enforce eVerfication because without jobs, illegal immigration will dry up. Again, this removes illegal immigration motivation.
4. Lastly, it has to be truly bipartisan. It can’t be like that other phony bill that had one Republican.
Like so many things, Congress is the problem.