Michigan lawmakers clash over bills to limit immigration enforcement

Bitter disagreements and fiery exchanges marked a Michigan Senate committee hearing Thursday as lawmakers considered bills that could impede deportation efforts being carried out by President Donald Trump's administration.

One of the measures would limit officers' ability to conduct immigration enforcement actions in places like schools, churches, hospitals, courthouses or buildings that house organizations that assist victims of abuse. Another proposal would broadly prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees from wearing masks.

A third bill would prevent government agencies from disclosing an individual's personal information to an entity attempting to enforce federal immigration law unless there is a court-issued warrant.

Detroit City Councilwoman Gabriela Santiago-Romero testified in favor of the package, contending that school attendance was down in Michigan's largest city because some parents and children were afraid to leave their homes, due to the federal deportation campaign.

"ICE agents in our cities are clearly violating our rights," Santiago-Romero contended. "They are manufacturing chaos and fear. This is making it so our residents are afraid to even call police."

However, Sen. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake Township, repeatedly criticized the bills and the way Thursday's hearing was run by the Democrats who lead the Senate's Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. He said the meeting was an "exercise in futility" because federal policies would ultimately outweigh any changes in Michigan law.

"When federal and state laws conflict, federal law wins," Runestad said at one point. "The state judges are bound by it."

Regardless, the bills in the Democratic-controlled Senate are unlikely to make it through the Legislature as Republicans have a majority of the votes in the House.

The Senate committee didn't hold a vote Thursday. Its chairwoman, Sen. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, said she hopes to hold votes soon.

"I think it's a top priority for a large number of us," Chang told The Detroit News.

'Can we control the audience?'

Thursday's hearing showcased the nation's divided response to the federal immigration crackdown. Every seat in the Senate meeting room was filled when the session began at noon, and more people flowed into a separate room where they could watch the proceedings on TV screens. Senate staff estimated that about 1,000 comments had been submitted about the proposals.

Runestad, the lone Republican lawmaker who took part in the hearing, accused Democrats of censoring him by not allowing him to ask all the questions he wanted of the people presenting testimony in support of the bills. And some of those in the crowd heckled Runestad as he spoke at various points Thursday.

"The Klan covered their faces too," a person in the crowd said as someone spoke against the mask ban, referencing the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist group.

At a different point, Runestad said the crowd was "snarking away."

"Can we control the audience?" Runestad, who's also chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, asked Chang.

Chang did ask for decorum when someone referred to Runestad as "Jimmy."

Trump, a Republican, ran for president in 2024, vowing to launch the largest deportation program in American history.

“This is country changing," said Trump during a campaign stop in Grand Rapids in April 2024 about a surge in migrants at the southern border. "It's country threatening. And it’s country wrecking. They have wrecked our country."

Since he took office in January 2025, Trump's administration has carried out more than 650,000 arrests, detentions and deportations, according to the White House.

Trump has personally acknowledged that ICE is "going to make some mistakes." But agents' fatal shootings, in recent weeks, of two individuals in Minnesota, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, have set off a new surge in opposition to ICE's tactics.

"Our country has always been a beacon and a leader for the entire world, and yet, it is crumbling right before or very own eyes," state Rep. Mai Xiong, D-Warren, told the committee. "Our federal government is tearing families apart. ICE is making Americans feel unsafe."

Runestad suggested that Xiong's comments were conflating illegal and legal immigration.

"This is strictly about people here illegally," Runestad said.

Mask ban proposed for ICE agents

Isaiah McKinnon, a former Detroit police chief, testified in support of the mask ban, which would prevent law enforcement officers from wearing masks, unless they were needed to prevent the spread of disease or for physical protection to the face. People who are safeguarding a community should identify themselves, McKinnon said.

Runestad said ICE officers wore masks because of "egregious" attacks that had been carried out against them.

"I was threatened personally," McKinnon said of his work as a police officer. "My family was threatened. And we didn't wear a mask. This is part of being a law enforcement officer."

Johanna Kononen, associate director at the Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, spoke in support of the bills that barred immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, like shelters for abuse victims.

"Allowing immigration enforcement in shelter spaces gives power to perpetrators ... and could unintentionally trap survivors in violent relationships, successfully preventing them from seeking help," Kononen said.

But Shari Rendall, director of state and local engagement for a national group called Federation for American Immigration Reform, testified in opposition to the bills.

Rendall argued there was no indication immigration enforcement raids were being carried out in the locations listed in the proposals. Immigration officials use their "good judgment," Rendall said. Taking someone into custody at a courthouse could be safer for the public, Rendall said.

"Not creating a blanket prohibition is crucial," Rendall said.

Others who spoke at Thursday's hearing disagreed with Rendall's claims. Chang said the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center had designated Rendall's organization a hate group.

"Do you oppose these bills, in part, because the safeguards for people's rights would make it harder for this current administration ... to achieve the goal of less people of color in the United States," Chang asked Rendall.

"We are not (a hate group)," Rendall said, adding that the Southern Poverty Law Center wasn't credible.

"We are nonpartisan. We are non-political. We firmly believe in the rule of law," Rendall said. "We do not believe that race has anything to do with it."

_________