KVS EXCLUSIVE: Former lawmaker/Navy Officer challenges Administration's claim that state is cooperating with feds

By Michael Bielawski,

A former state lawmaker and US Naval Reservist, Job Tate, disagrees with the Scott Administration’s chief of staff, Jason Gibbs, on whether the state cooperates with their federal counterparts on immigration enforcement.

Tate shared a conversation X that he had with Gibbs, the text appears as a screenshot from another social media site.

The highlighted exchange begins with Gibbs writing, “There is nothing in Vermont’s law or policy that impedes enforcement of federal immigration law. In fact, we cooperate on a range of related matters, initiatives and task forces, provide operational support, backup, and information when it is provided.”

Job Tate

Tate then cited a bill that passed in 2017 that he said was intended to restrict such interactions.

“Is it your assertion that S. 79 WASNT intended to prevent Vermont LEOs [local enforcement units] from assisting federal LEOs in certain immigration enforcement activities?” he wrote. “Because I was there when Gov. Scott told me and the rest of the GOP caucus that that was precisely the goal of the legislation that he asked the legislature for.”

Tate is a former Republican two-term representative in the Vermont House from 2015 to 2017. During his second term, he resigned his seat to serve overseas in the Navy.

Tate writes in conclusion about the exchange, “@GovPhilScott's Chief of Staff boldly asserts (lies) that there's zero laws on the books that impede federal enforcement of immigration laws. The funding issue is top of mind on the 5th floor.”

S. 79 was eventually signed into law as Act 5. The Act states that no person in Vermont shall be denied “benefits and protections of law enforcement and public safety without regard to their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, race, color, religion, national origin, immigration status, age, or disability.”

Another section says, “The State of Vermont therefore has a substantial, sovereign interest in prohibiting State and local government officials from collecting or disclosing certain information to federal authorities for the purposes of registration of its residents based on the personally identifying information as defined in this act.”

On another X post he again references the 2017 law.

"Remember when you guys and the Governor (and a bunch of the people currently screaming bloody murder about the detention of a known terrorist sympathizer) passed S.79, barring state officials from participating in this enforcement? Smooth move, Ex Lax," he wrote.

Contradicting their oath?

A legal analysis at USAttorneys.com of what municipal sanctuary status means for local law enforcement indicates that such municipalities may not “require” that their officers enforce federal immigration law. The analysis does not specify that an officer can’t choose to do so anyway.

All officers nationwide still swear an oath to the federal constitution, which does include the requirement that borders be protected. It states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Vermont Criminal Justice Council

VDC covered that the Vermont Criminal Justice Council recently sent a letter to communities statewide concerning their recommendations for dealing with their federal counterparts and immigration enforcement. Its first two points are that “Vermont Law Enforcement cannot enforce federal civil immigration law” and “Vermont Law Enforcement can enforce federal criminal immigration law.”

It then continues, “Enforcing federal criminal immigration law is generally not a priority for Vermont Law Enforcement agencies.”

The difference between civil and criminal immigration law concerns the severity of the infraction. A civil or misdemeanor level offense, which still means being in the country illegally, but under current state policy it is not something that Vermont will ensure its police enforce.

The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle