In 2013, Connecticut enacted the so-called “Trust Act” to foster trust between illegal immigrants and state law enforcement. The idea was simple: unless you’re a criminal, local police wouldn’t report you to federal immigration authorities. In 2019, Connecticut Democrats went well beyond this. They pushed through a change to the law taking away the ability of local police to cooperate with federal agencies—over the objections of every Republican in the state legislature and even some in their own party. Now, with a new legislative session underway, several senators, including our own Senator Ryan Fazio, have proposed a common-sense amendment to this law. Some have responded to that proposal with a lot of overheated rhetoric. To cut through the noise, let’s focus on the facts.
Senator Fazio’s amendment targets two gaps in the latest version of the Trust Act. He proposes that illegal immigrants convicted of Class C, D, and E felonies—crimes including manslaughter, sexual assault, burglary, arson, or identity theft—or those with judicial warrants can be turned over to federal authorities at the state’s discretion. This isn’t a mandate; it’s an option. But you wouldn’t know that from the hysteria whipped up by Democrats, who warn of ICE raids that have no relevance to this law one way or another. The Trust Act already blocks ICE from freely operating in jails, courthouses, or schools—a fact conveniently ignored by those peddling sanctuary ideology over public safety.
Opposing Fazio’s amendment means implicitly endorsing some ugly outcomes. Take Sanjay Silvan Walsh, a Jamaican national convicted of sexually abusing two minors in Connecticut. After serving just 21 months of a 10-year sentence, the state ignored an ICE detainer and released him back into our communities. ICE had to track him down a risky and costly move that could’ve been avoided with cooperation. Or consider Emerson Eduardo Ferreira, a Brazilian national convicted of sexual assault and violating restraining orders. Connecticut let him walk free after his sentence, forcing ICE to arrest him later in Brooklyn, CT. Then there’s Alejandro-Martinez, who killed Nicholas Diaz, a father of three, in a drunk-driving crash. The state shrugged off a federal deportation request, leaving a dangerous offender among us.
These aren’t isolated cases—they’re symptoms of a broader failure. Open borders and sanctuary policies, championed by the Democrat Party, have unleashed a humanitarian and public safety crisis across the country. Millions have flooded in, exploited by traffickers and political opportunists who see them as nothing more than a voting bloc to lock in power. The cost? Suffering for migrants and citizens alike—crime, strained resources, and eroded trust in government. Democrats cloak this in folksy platitudes and avuncular assurances, but their refusal to address the consequences exposes a cynical agenda.
Fazio’s amendment isn’t off base—it’s a modest fix. It empowers law enforcement to hand over serious offenders without turning Connecticut into a deportation mill. Republicans, independents, and pragmatic Democrats should see it for what it is: a step toward accountability and safety. The left’s reaction—shrill and unhinged—reveals their priorities. They’d rather protect criminals than citizens, clinging to a sanctuary dogma that’s crumbling under scrutiny and lived experience.
The real question is trust. Do you trust the architects of this mess—the Democrat Party who’ve spent years excusing lawlessness under the guise of compassion? Or do you trust leaders like Fazio, who offer solutions rooted in reason and respect for the rule of law? For too long, politicians have chased the approval of activists and ignored the voters who put them in office. Connecticut deserves better. We need public servants who secure our communities, not just their electoral futures.
As citizens of common sense, we believe in law, order, and sovereignty. Fazio’s proposal aligns with those principles, especially balancing state autonomy with federal responsibility. It’s not about fearmongering—it’s about-facing reality. The Trust Act can protect the innocent without shielding the guilty. In the end, trust belongs to those who prioritize the safety and will of the people over ideology. That’s a choice Republicans and others of good will have always stood for, and it’s one Connecticut should make now with this much needed public safety amendment.
David Lancaster
