The past year, since Donald Trump was reinstated as president, has been an especially tumultuous and fearful time for immigrant communities across the United States. The administration has sharply accelerated immigration enforcement since January, reviving workplace raids, expanding courthouse arrests, and pressuring local police to cooperate with federal authorities. Many Americans assume that blue states like Connecticut are prepared to push back. But Connecticut’s response tells a more complicated story. While the state has some of New England’s strongest legal protections for immigrants, advocates and municipal leaders argue that these measures do not always deliver the safety they promise.
Trump’s renewed focus on attacking “sanctuary cities” has further intensified pressure. In January, the administration claimed that such jurisdictions “seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations.” Of course, attacking these areas will not and has not done anything to lower crime rates or create safer communities across the country. Sanctuary cities are instead areas that are limiting cooperation with federal enforcement of the immigration crackdown and placing a greater emphasis on residents’ safety and well-being. The administration’s claims also ignore the reality: sanctuary policies do not prevent federal agents from enforcing immigration law. Instead, they prevent states and localities from being compelled to use their own resources to do so. These actions are entirely legal as the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the federal government cannot force local jurisdictions to enforce federal laws. Sanctuary policies simply direct cities to prioritize public safety over fear, limit information-sharing with ICE, and reduce the chilling effect that aggressive enforcement has on entire communities.
However, the federal administration’s hostile posture has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear among localities not directly supporting such initiatives, especially in Connecticut. Despite its progressive reputation, Connecticut still struggles with uneven local enforcement, legal gray areas, and political hesitancy. The question remains on what Connecticut can do exactly to mitigate Trump’s immigration crackdown, and whether or not the state is willing to continue pushing back as enforcements escalate more.
The Trust Act: strong on paper, uneven in practice
Connecticut’s Trust Act is often cited as a model policy. It prevents police from arresting someone solely on the basis of an ICE detainer, which is a document requesting to hold a person for extra time so that federal agents can retrieve them. There are some exceptions to this rule in some situations, such as when a judicial warrant is presented or in cases involving serious felonies or terrorism.
But in practice, the Trust Act has several limits in its genuine protections for immigrants. It does not stop ICE from continuing to conduct arrests within the state, including at people’s homes or in their workplaces. It also does not prohibit ICE from using state databases, including motor vehicle or court records, to locate individuals. Additionally, since the act is quite broad, it leaves room for interpretation by various police departments, some of which align more closely with the federal administration’s mindset than the state’s. Advocates argue that the law, while symbolically important, doesn’t fully protect residents from the real-world consequences of heightened federal raids.
local ordinances help, but only where they exist
Some municipalities, like Hamden, have gone further by passing “Welcoming City” ordinances. According to the Hartford Courant, this policy advises police officers not to question residents on their immigration status and argues that police will not arrest anyone based on an ICE detainer. It also prohibits town employees, including those working in public schools, from cooperating with ICE. In Hamden, this essentially functions as an extension of the Trust Act to ensure it includes all municipal employees in the area. These local laws strengthen trust between immigrant residents and city agencies. However, this protection is very inconsistent. Few Connecticut towns have adopted such specific policies, and various municipalities are fearful of being explicitly labeled “sanctuary cities” that the Department of Homeland Security argues ‘openly defy’ the immigration crackdown, thus making them greater targets for federal enforcement.
Enforcement of these protections and passage of laws vary widely across the state. It is influenced by myriads of factors: from political support among lawmakers to adequate police training and leadership, which is not strong enough to combat the issues in various localities. Cities like New Haven that are long known for immigrant protections, warn that their ability to resist is limited. The mayor of New Haven, Justin Elicker, noted that if police were to warn residents about impending ICE operations, they could face obstruction of justice charges. That legal constraint leaves communities in a precarious position: cities want to protect residents but cannot always do so without risking retaliation.
our state leaders express concern, but policy movement is slow
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont says his administration is “reviewing” reports of federal actions and exploring new protections around courthouse safety, data privacy, and health care access. While the statement signals awareness, critics say it does not outline a concrete plan. There are growing questions:
- Why hasn’t Connecticut passed statewide courthouse protections, as states like California and New York have done?
- Why isn’t there a uniform policy restricting local police from sharing information with ICE, beyond the detainer restrictions?
- Why aren’t there mandated statewide policies as opposed to the ordinances that have been imposed by local municipalities?
Lamont’s language, focused on “reviewing,” “evaluating,” and “discussing,” suggests a hesitancy to escalate conflict with federal authorities. It is certainly a precarious situation in a time when the federal government is powerful and rather punitive.
resources for immigrants in Connecticut
Despite gaps in state policy, several trusted organizations offer legal support, emergency resources, and rights education:
- . Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants (CIRI)
-
Statewide nonprofit offering immigration legal services: family-based petitions, asylum, DACA, citizenship, and removal defense.
- . Connecticut Legal Services (CLS)
-
Largest legal aid agency in Connecticut; provides services regardless of immigration status.
- . CtLawHelp
-
Website with free legal help guides in multiple languages covering “Immigration and Citizenship” among other topics.
- . Immigration Legal Services Hotline: 1-800-798-0671
-
Referrals for undocumented youth, families, and unaccompanied minors.
Connecticut is better prepared than many states, but not immune
Connecticut’s current protections matter. They shield many residents from unnecessary detention, prevent routine traffic stops from turning into deportation proceedings, and ensure local resources aren’t used to enforce federal policies residents did not vote for. But gaps remain, and in the Trump era, even small gaps can have major consequences. Immigrants in Connecticut still risk being picked up in courthouse hallways, targeted through state data systems, or detained in towns without strong local ordinances. The state has tools to strengthen protections, but whether it will use them depends on political will and how aggressively federal authorities continue to test the boundaries of state and municipal resistance.