Meanwhile, fellow Progressivish Democrat Vyhovsky pushes anti-ICE bills in Vermont Senate
By Guy Page
Democrats in the Vermont Senate and the U.S. House this week are united in their fervent opposition to current federal enforcement of immigration law.
Rep. Becca Balint (D), Vermont’s sole Congressperson, gave an impassioned talk at a Tuesday press conference in the Cedar Creek Room of the Vermont State House.
One in-person observer described the scene for VDC: “ICE, ICE, ICE was the focus the whole time. Impeach Noem is on the table. Abolish ICE and do not fund them and people are scared and children including hers are fearful of the future.”
Balint said the Democrat caucus of the U.S. House was shaken to the core with the murder (her words) of Alex Pretti by federal agents.
In Washington, Progressivish Democrats likely Balint are the vocal minority. In Montpelier, Progressivish Democrats likely Tanya Vyhovsky are ramrodding anti-ICE legislation.
While no federal court is likely to allow Vermont law to restrict how ICE does its job, that hasn’t stopped Vyhovsky and like-minded senators from trying.
If they catch lightning in a bottle and actually influence the federal government, that’s great for them. But win or lose, leading the charge reaps a benefit in political organizing. The legislative process attracts, encourages, and organizes potential voters, campaign workers, and donors.
Balint won’t be a House member forever. Welch was a House member before he was elected senator. Balint could follow the same path. Balint was a state senator before she was elected to Congress. Vyhovsky is a senator from the most populous county in Vermont.
As reported by VDC last week, Vyhovsky has co-sponsored S.208 to unmask ICE agents is the lead sponsor on a bill to radically limit where and when they can detain suspected illegal immigrants (S.209). Judiciary Chair Nader Hashim (D-Windham) said Tuesday his committee will likely vote on the bills next week.
Friday, Vyhovsky showed she’s not done trying to tie ICE’s hands. She introduced S.302, which says a public agency shall not collect information regarding the immigration status of an individual, ‘unless the collection is for a specific and articulable purpose required by State or federal law.’
Would a friendly judge rule that immigration detention isn’t a ‘specific and articulate purpose’?
Clearly, Vyhovsky and others in the Senate would like the chance to find out.