LAKEVILLE — Attorney General William Tong knows first hand about the plight of immigrants.
He spoke to a standing-room-only crowd at Trinity Lime Rock Church March 6, which together with those on Zoom totaled 225. The event was hosted by Vecinos Seguros 2, a grassroots organization that works to make sure those without legal status know their rights.
Tong has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and is part of a group of attorneys general around the country who are banding together to take legal action against his actions.
He stirred the audience with his personal story. Growing up in West Hartford, where he remembered kids showing up at his school from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam after he was the first Asian student enrolled, he thought “they were refugees and I was the son of immigrants. I thought I was better than them. In fullness of time, I realized what we were all doing here. My parents and grandparents ran for their lives in China. I am nothing but the son of refugees. There was no daylight between those kids and the immigrants showing up today.”
Tong related how his parents met while both were working in a restaurant in Hartford. One day, in the 1970s, a representative from the Immigration and Naturalization Service showed up and because his father was undocumented, was threatened with deportation. After much thought, the senior Tong was resigned to the fact he would have to leave. But shortly before the deadline, while driving along the Berlin Turnpike, he decided to make a last-ditch effort. He went home and wrote a six-page handwritten letter to then-President Richard Nixon explaining his case. The INS agent returned later and said the president had read the letter and sent the message that the country welcomed him and urged him to stay.
Tong said he’s often asked what brings him hope during these times. “In one generation, I went from that Chinese restaurant to attorney general of this state. There are kids out there now; families living with that dream. We need to help them keep it.”
The attorney general said that when Trump talks about denaturalizing citizens and then about anchor babies, he is talking about him. “Banning birthright citizens is utterly and brazenly unconstitutional.” Audience members, as they did several times during the presentation, applauded loudly.
Speaking on the importance of immigration for moral and economic structural reasons, Tong noted, “America runs on Dunkin’ and immigrant workers. There would be no economy without immigrants.” Half of all farm workers are undocumented, as are half of those working in the meat packing industry he said.
It was standing-room only for Attorney General William Tong’s talk on immigration at Trinity Church Lime Rock Thursday, March 7. Photo by Ruth Epstein
Touching on Connecticut’s Trust Act that was passed in 2013, Tong explained that it limits how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration officials to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants. He called efforts to repeal the act “ridiculous,” saying “the federal government does its job and we here do ours.” He said if anyone tries to get rid of the act, he will fight it and believes he’ll win, emphasizing several times that Connecticut is a sovereign state. The federal government has a lot of power, but can’t come to Connecticut to tell its citizens what to do.
When asked what people can do to help those without legal status, Tong advised not to put anyone at risk and make sure they have a plan if ICE shows up. Agents must have a judicial warrant to come on private property. He also recommended they seek people who will provide pro-bono legal advice. He said those holding green cards have legal status and should be respected by ICE. He also recommended not using the word “sanctuary” since it has no legal meaning and can be inflammatory. He was also forthright in saying not everyone can be protected from deportation.
He added there is no evidence to support the claims that immigrants create crime more than American citizens and stressed the Trust Act does not protect violent criminals.
At the outset, Tong said he and his colleagues had sued the federal government when Trump and the Office of Policy and Management tried to freeze all federal funding for a variety of grants, especially those dealing with medical research. “We now have an injunction to stop him from breaking the law. Remembering we have checks and balances, we’re serving as the only check since there is so much disinformation out there.”
Coming to the end of his message, Tong’s tone was foreboding. “We’re not on the precipice of a constitutional crisis, we’re in one. Trump is already not in compliance with federal court orders. If he doesn’t follow Supreme Court rulings, we’re in a dark place. We all have the responsibility to take to the streets and speak out.”
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.