Days after Avelo Airlines said it would begin chartered deportation flights out of Mesa, Ariz., for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Connecticut lawmakers took up a proposal prohibiting companies who wish to contract with state agencies from working with federal immigration authorities.

Avelo, a smaller airline that operates flights out of Hartford’s Bradley International and Tweed New Haven airports, came under fire during a meeting of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee Tuesday.

Rep. Steven Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, said Avelo doesn’t pay Connecticut’s aviation fuel tax, calling the arrangement “a backstop against losses here in the state.”

Stafstrom said, “State taxpayers are helping prop that company up and keep that company operational. But then they turn around and they are then using those same planes that we’re helping to subsidize, to deport individuals out of this country.

“I don’t think that’s how we should be spending our state tax dollars,” he said.

The committee was discussing a bill that seeks to modify a state law known as the Trust Act, which regulates how local and state police cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The Trust Act generally prohibits Connecticut law enforcement from arresting someone solely on the basis of a detainer — a request from ICE that police hold a person for up to 48 hours so federal agents can pick them up — with some exceptions.

The original version of House Bill 7212 sought to expand the Trust Act to prohibit public agencies in the state from sharing information with ICE about a person’s home address, workplace, school or “the date, time or location of a person’s hearings, proceedings or appointments with the public agency.”

Now, in the wake of Avelo’s deal with DHS, members of the Judiciary Committee are seeking to further expand the bill, adding companies to the entities that could be prohibited from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

The new language in the bill would require that “any principal or key personnel of the person, firm or corporation” that decides to apply for a contract with a state agency “will not cooperate with any federal immigration authority or engage in any contract for purposes of the detention, holding or transportation of an individual” protected under the state’s Trust Act.

If the company refuses, the state would be directed to award the contract instead “to the next highest ranked proposer or the next lowest responsible qualified bidder” or to seek new bids. 

Hundreds of people submitted testimony or testified in person at a public hearing in March, when the original version of the bill — which was put forward by Democratic lawmakers — and another bill encouraging closer cooperation among ICE and local law enforcement — which was submitted by Republicans — were heard by the Judiciary Committee. Of the nearly 200 people who testified in person, nearly all were in favor of restricting collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. 

At the Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, members both debated the new language in H.B. 7212 and voted to advance the bill for consideration by the state House of Representatives. The Republican proposal, H.B. 7211, did not receive a vote.

During the meeting, Republicans on the committee continued to protest H.B. 7212 as a whole, saying it would endanger public safety and that it wrongly went against the federal government’s authority.

Rep. Greg Howard, R-Stonington, in the Tuesday meeting asked whether places of business would be penalized for complying with a judicial warrant, one of the exceptions allowed under the Trust Act in which local law enforcement must cooperate with ICE. 

“ If a federal immigration authority shows up to a nonprofit, say, that’s partly state funded and they have a warrant to enter, I would hope that individual will be able to cooperate with a judicial warrant,” said Howard.

Stafstrom said a judicial warrant would override the prohibitions in the bill, and that he would be open to adding clarifying language to the bill. 

Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, said the federal government has declared certain “criminal prison gangs” to be international terrorist organizations and it’s deporting people thought to be members of this gang. 

“ That’s how you make this state and this country safer,” Dubitsky said. “You get rid of the criminal gangs. You get rid of the criminals, you get rid of these sex offenders, the murderers, the drug dealers. That’s how you make us safe. Throwing sticks in the spokes of the federal law enforcement that is trying to do that does not make us safe.”

“ Federal immigration officials are coming to this state to get these people. They are coming. There isn’t anything we can do about it.”

Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, said the federal government has “exclusive jurisdiction” over immigration and federal law is “supreme” over state law. 

“ It’s important that our federal law enforcement is able to cooperate with local law enforcement with regard to enforcing federal law. Any action by anybody — especially by the states — to impede that, to hold that back and slow it down is, in my mind, unconstitutional and un-American,” he said. 

Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, pushed back.

“ It’s not un-American to support this. What’s un-American is to take people out of this country because they use the freedoms that we all enjoy, whether we’re citizens or not, to speak up — to say what we see,” said Winfield. “What’s un-American is to have a country where folks have to live in fear because they’re doing the day-to-day … they’re just living, raising their children, working and they don’t know from day to day what’s going to happen. That’s the essence of what this bill is about.” 

H.B. 7212 passed out of the committee with a vote of 29-12.

The same day the bill passed, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sent a letter to Avelo CEO Andrew Levy asking questions about its policies for deportation flights and expressing “deep disappointment” at the company’s decision to contract with the Department of Homeland Security.

“Absent clear, public commitments to safety and the rule of law, the Office of the Attorney General may be forced to recommend that Connecticut rescind its support for and partnership with Avelo,” Tong wrote. 

Courtney Goff, communications manager for Avelo, told the Connecticut Mirror in an email that the company was in the midst of reviewing the attorney general’s letter and would “communicate directly with the state of Connecticut.” 

On Wednesday evening, about 50 people gathered outside of Tweed Airport in New Haven to protest Avelo’s decision to contract with DHS. The group held signs and marched, chanting, “Don’t let your vacation fund deportation.” The protest was organized by advocacy groups Unidad Latina in Accion and Shoreline United.

John Jairo Lugo, an organizer with Unidad Latina in Accion, said he believes the state shouldn’t subsidize fuel for Avelo. “ Right now, these companies, they are signing contacts … to make profits on the suffering in our community,” he said.

An online petition calling on people to boycott Avelo has gathered nearly 18,000 signatures on so far.