When I heard that ICE’s funding was increased so dramatically, I couldn’t just do nothing. You know they target people who *attend* all their immigration hearings, don’t you? Target people trying to do everything right. Why might they want people to behave in unlawful ways? Every possible answer is bone-chilling.

The vast majority of ICE arrestees this year have no criminal records. There are no official repercussions for anyone involved if U.S. citizens are arrested. (Which is illegal.) The administration has set indiscriminate arrest quotas. If you were me, with a seat on the local board, how many of your constituents would have to be taken by masked men for you to try to do something?

Speaking of my board seat: After searching for a place to live in Hartford for about nine months, my partner and I found a house in Lebanon. So we’re moving end of July, and I’m reluctantly leaving the board. As usual, I write here only as myself and certainly don’t speak for the board or town.

For the last meeting where I have a vote—Tuesday July 22—I have proposed a simple ordinance to ban any kind of secret police in Hartford: where you don’t know who’s carrying you away. To be clear: the Hartford PD haven’t been doing this. But ICE have been elsewhere, and the board should make clear they’re not welcome to do it here.

With total anonymity on the table—as it is currently—you might sit at brunch near an ICE agent, in civilian clothes, unaware that just the night before, he fed a small Hartford family into a bureaucratic nightmare that ends in a foreign labor camp from which there is literally no return. And he knew that would be the result. The ICE staffer smiles in your direction. You smile back.

This kind of experience defined life in Nazi Germany. No longer do you have to wonder what that place was like.

For those who watch the board deliberate on Tuesday: don’t let board members you support say they like the general idea but still vote against it locally, on a technicality like “it’s better as a state issue.” That’s precisely the bad-faith argument politicians have been using on abortion (and gun control, gay marriage, etc) for decades. It’s a deflection by powerful people who think you’re naive enough to buy it. I hope you don’t.

In case any board member claims they wanted a bigger “coalition,” or a longer “process” by which this came about… I urge you to remember Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, who gloated that you can dismantle a democracy in front of a liberal’s face piece by piece, and all they’ll do is convene breakout sessions and committee meetings ‘til the boots are in the halls. I urge you to tell the board the *right* decision is simply the one with the right outcome. If the idea is good “on the merits,” then it deserves support no matter the venue, or list of co-sponsors.

As Matthew E. Cochran said, “If you sit down to play a game of chess and your opponent punches you in the face, you’re not going to prevail by getting better at chess.” Now is the time to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. (Technically, that time was long ago, but it is certainly now.)

In the original draft of the ordinance I proposed, the exception for absolutely necessary undercover work was somewhat unclear. So I am posting below a version where that paragraph is slightly amended. I will offer this amendment for consideration at the meeting.

Wow is this concept simple. What should a civil society prevent, and what should it allow? I don’t believe ICE should be able to abduct my neighbors anonymously. If they’re going to come and do that, I want them to at least show their faces and say their names, so the rest of us can decide whether to accept them in polite society. It so happens that something like “social ostracizing” is really important: it may be the only way to prevent fascism.

There is a theoretical basis to anti-fascism. It’s an idea called “the paradox of tolerance.” I urge you to read its summary on Wikipedia. Once you understand it, you too will realize: the only way to truly be nice is to be mean to fascists. So that’s the social dynamic that prevents fascism; what about the official one, of laws and rules?

Democracy is as much about accountability as it is about voting. Because without accountability, you don’t get voting. It eventually goes away. And the only way to hold an *institution* accountable is if its members are, first, identifiable. Being able to identify individuals is just the first step to accountability—but no steps follow without it.

There is a chance this ordinance does not pass Tuesday night. This would mean Hartford tried to take the first step toward securing democracy, and faltered. By golly are the boots in the halls. 

It’s been a great pleasure to serve you this last year-plus on the board. A copy of the amended ordinance follows. It’s scheduled for discussion around 9pm at town hall. If you’re not able to attend, I hope you’ll write in support of it, to selectboard@hartford-vt.org.

~~

Ordinance Against Anonymity of Law Enforcement When Working In Their Official Capacity

WHEREAS, due to the increasingly-common practice of federal immigration officials concealing their identities from the public, including those they are apprehending, while working in their official capacity,

And WHEREAS, due to the soon-to-be-felt influx of federal funding for said immigration agencies,

And WHEREAS, the accountability of law enforcement officials is a bedrock of democracy, and this accountability hinges completely on law enforcement officials’ being identifiable while acting in their official capacities,

The following Ordinance is proposed:

As of the enacting of this ordinance, the Town of Hartford, Vermont requires all law enforcement operating within town limits, from any jurisdiction local state or federal, to leave their faces uncovered when acting in their official capacity, and, to provide their first and last names and badge numbers when asked by any member of the public, including those they may be apprehending, and/or any member of Town staff, and requires that law enforcement personnel allow for whomever is asking to record the identification information for their own future reference.

The only exceptions to the provision on face coverings shall be when there is inclement weather to protect from frostbite, or a strong suspicion of the presence of a communicable disease, or as otherwise addressed during a future epidemic/pandemic by a Police Chief, Town Manager, or Selectboard.

The only exception to both provisions (face covering and disclosure of one’s name) is if the member of law enforcement is working on an undercover assignment given to them by their superior(s) that could only be conducted via the use of an undercover officer.

This ordinance, when passed, is to be communicated to all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.