A state that calls itself welcoming while our neighbors live in fear
Connecticut loves to tell the world that we are a “welcoming state.” But if you walk through Stamford, Norwalk, Danbury, Bridgeport, New Haven — you will hear a very different truth whispered in living rooms, church basements, and late-night phone calls: families afraid to open the door, parents terrified to bring children to school, workers avoiding a shift because ICE has been spotted circling parking lots.
During the November special session, the Capitol was crowded with organizers, advocates and community leaders who came to make sure legislators heard these stories. Many were there for housing, for homelessness, for broader justice. But a powerful presence came from Connecticut’s migrant-rights organizers, including SNUI, Stamford Norwalk United with Immigrants, DUFI, Danbury United For Immigrants, whose members came despite exhaustion, fear and burnout from months of supporting families under attack.
SNUI’s presence included leaders and Co-Founders like Max Cisneros, a relentless advocate for migrant families and overall social justice, wearing his now-infamous “Alien Rights” tee shirt — a bit of humor aimed at a federal vocabulary that still calls human beings “aliens.” Their message was clear: Connecticut must do better.
As someone who helped build SNUI, I know how much work goes into this fight. As I created the Observers team, I have seen firsthand how much courage and emotional weight this work demands. Though I am no longer involved, the volunteers who continue this mission carry an extraordinary burden to keep our neighbors safe.
These are regular people, not lawyers, not elected officials, who stand outside courthouses documenting arrests, who deliver food to families too afraid to go to a supermarket like SNUI organizes. All of this would not be happening without the support of groups like Nosotras, those who answer midnight calls from terrified family members of these impacted or who could be potentially impacted, and do drives to get money to those families impacted by ICE through another entity. It is frontline work, and it is work done in fear.
Which is why what happened during special session was so deeply disappointing.
How we got here: The Trust Act, what it meant, and how it has shifted
Connecticut’s modern Trust Act protections began in 2019. Those laws restricted cooperation with ICE, required judicial warrants for civil detainers, limited information sharing, expanded FOIA access to ICE-related records, and required reporting and training. It was not perfect, but it was a real attempt to draw a line between state policing and federal deportation forces.
Then came 2025.
The regular session passed HB7066, which deals with schools. It requires districts, RESCs and charters to designate administrators as immigration-authority points of contact and to follow clear protocols. It protects those administrators from retaliation. For families terrified that an ICE knock could come at the school entrance, this mattered.
But the session also brought HB7259, which expanded the definition of “law enforcement officer” under the Trust Act, bringing juvenile probation, prosecutors and others under the same restrictions, while simultaneously expanding the list of people who can be detained or made available to ICE interviews. Thirteen additional offenses were added to the carve-out list. At the same time, HB7259 created a civil cause of action so people harmed by violations can sue municipalities, a tool that will matter later, but only after the harm has already happened.
By the end of the regular session, we had a Trust Act that was stronger in some ways, weaker in others, and still left massive cracks where families fall through.
And then came the special session.
What HB8004 actually does — and why it falls so far short
In November’s special session, lawmakers passed HB8004, the bill the Governor was willing to sign. It was marketed as a “protection package” for migrants. In reality, it made three changes:
1. Courthouse rules
Law enforcement must notify a judicial marshal before detaining someone on courthouse grounds for a civil offense, and must show documentation that the person is the subject of a judicial warrant or falls under the Trust Act exceptions.
2. Ban on face coverings by law enforcement
People enforcing state or federal laws on courthouse grounds generally cannot wear face coverings unless medically necessary.
3. Restrictions on public agencies disclosing private location information
Agencies cannot give out home addresses, work locations, school details or appointment times except under specific circumstances.
These provisions are not meaningless.
They do create some guardrails around privacy. They do restrict masked enforcement on courthouse grounds. They do deter the worst courthouse ambushes, on paper.
But here is the part no one wants to say out loud:
HB8004 is barely enforceable. It depends almost entirely on:
Law enforcement voluntarily alerting a judicial marshal; Judicial marshals having the training, time and authority to push back; Agencies following written protocols instead of longstanding informal habits of cooperation; Victims understanding they can file civil actions — and having resources to do so; and ICE actually respecting the boundaries.
None of these are guaranteed. Not one.
ICE does not answer to Connecticut. ICE does not operate with transparency. ICE does not notify local officials of its operations. And ICE does not care whether a judicial marshal “approves” a civil arrest.
HB8004 creates a procedure, not a shield. A process, not a protection.
And only on courthouse property — not schools, not workplaces, not churches, not parking lots, not homes, not the sidewalks where most arrests actually happen.
This is not what safety looks like.
Meanwhile, Outside the Capitol’s Marble Halls, Real Terror Continues
While lawmakers were voting on procedural fixes, ICE continued practicing various patterns that SNUI’s Observers and other groups across the state have documented for months: agents waiting in unmarked cars, following people into parking lots, grabbing workers outside job sites, or intercepting parents on their way to drop children off at school.
Most of the people targeted are not “the worst of the worst.”
They are mostly people waiting for visas, people with minor traffic issues, and people who were told by public defenders that they “must appear in person” even when doing so places them directly in ICE’s crosshairs.
Families are now so afraid that mutual-aid groups have to organize food deliveries and more, because people are too terrified to go to supermarkets, the bank, laundromat, school, places of worship and court. Children are afraid to walk to school. Community leaders report widespread panic every time an unknown vehicle circulates a neighborhood.
And in this climate of fear, the state passed… a mask rule. It is no wonder people are losing confidence in Connecticut’s claim that we are a “welcoming state.”
What Connecticut could have done — but chose not to
Before special session, I wrote to my former colleagues urging far stronger protections. The demands included:
- Full protection of personal information from any use in immigration enforcement
- Prohibiting ICE arrests in courthouses and on the way to court, not just requiring a procedural notification
- Ending all state and local assistance to ICE, including indirect support and National Guard deployments
- Protecting migrants at schools, churches, workplaces, and all the places where everyday life happens
- Supporting mutual-aid groups that are doing the dangerous, unpaid work that large nonprofits are often not equipped or willing to do
- Adopting a New Jersey–style law requiring oversight and advance notice of out-of-state law enforcement operations, protecting activists, journalists and outspoken community leaders from political targeting
These were not radical ideas. They were practical, evidence-based, and morally urgent. But in a special session controlled entirely by what the Governor will sign, none of these measures were allowed on the table.
A Short Session is coming — and it must not be used as an excuse
Connecticut’s next session begins in February and ends in May, a short session. Traditionally, controversial bills struggle to move in short sessions. But that “tradition” has been broken many times when leadership chose to prioritize something.
If protecting migrant families is treated as a priority, bills can move, and move fast. If it is treated as an afterthought, procedural bills like HB8004 will be the ceiling rather than the floor.
And we cannot afford that. Not now. Not with the federal government rolling out new immigration directives that encourage profiling, expand arrest criteria, and lower the threshold for targeting people based solely on suspicion or administrative categories.
If ICE is increasing its authority and lowering its barriers, Connecticut must raise ours.
The question before us
So the question for our leaders is simple:
Will Connecticut continue offering symbolic gestures — or will it finally pass the serious protections our migrant neighbors need to live without terror?
Will we keep patching the Trust Act on the margins — or will we confront the reality that ICE is operating like an unaccountable force in our communities, exploiting every loophole we leave?
Will we prioritize this work at the very start of the 2026 session, in Judiciary, Public Safety and every committee of cognizance — or will we let the anxiety, fear and trauma that our neighbors are living through remain unaddressed?
As a neighbor, as a former legislator, as someone who has been on “the grounds”, and as someone who has been listening to families describe the terror of ICE, I am asking the General Assembly to act with courage equal to the courage shown by our communities.
Connecticut cannot call itself welcoming while our neighbors are hunted. It cannot claim justice while children are afraid to walk to school. It cannot pretend to be safe while mutual-aid groups must deliver groceries because families fear leaving home.
We must do better. And the time is now.
—
David Michel is a former State Representative for the 146th General Assembly House District that covers the South End, Downtown and Shippan in Stamford. He was an Assistant Majority Leader and an Assistant Majority Whip