Proponents argued the measures protect vulnerable populations and immigrant safety, while opponents questioned federal preemption and the bills’ practical impact on law enforcement.

Testimony described fear in immigrant communities, with proponents saying safeguards are needed for public safety and civil rights, and opponents warning the measures could stigmatize undocumented people and hinder policing.

One measure would ban certain records from being shared with ICE without a warrant, while another would bar ICE officers from wearing masks—advocates argue identifiability and safety, while opponents warn it could undermine officer safety and enable concealment.

Tensions were evident with interruptions and accusations of censorship, underscoring polarized reactions to federal immigration crackdowns.

Supporters and witnesses highlighted the importance of officers being identifiable to the communities they serve, drawing on personal experiences to push for the mask ban.

The hearing featured a large crowd and broad public comments, reflecting national tensions over immigration enforcement.

Advocates for accountability, such as Aisa Villarosa of the Asian Law Caucus, framed current conditions as dangerous and urged scrutiny of enforcement practices.

A Michigan Senate committee heard a set of bills aimed at limiting federal immigration enforcement by restricting ICE activities in sensitive locations, prohibiting ICE officers from wearing masks, and restricting disclosure of personal information to entities enforcing federal immigration law without a warrant.

The proposals would bar immigration enforcement actions at schools, churches, hospitals, courthouses, or in buildings hosting domestic abuse victim services, with a parallel mask ban unless health or safety reasons apply.

The hearing drew a packed committee room and overflow observers, signaling high public interest and a highly polarized debate over immigration enforcement.

Key supporters contended safeguards are necessary to protect abuse victims and vulnerable groups, while critics challenged the need and effectiveness of state-level restrictions and urged preserving officer discretion.

Emotional moments arose in testimony, including remarks from nursing association members and a chair acknowledging the tense climate, yet expressing hope about protecting communities.