Governor Ned Lamont’s re‑election campaign released its first television advertisement that directly names Republican Senate candidate Ryan Fazio. The ad features Senior Pastor Lindsay Curtis of Grace Baptist Church in Norwalk, who says members of her congregation fear ICE agents who, she claims, are targeting people based on skin color.
Trump’s immigration enforcement as a community safeguard
In the spot, Pastor Curtis praises Governor Lamont for signing a 2026 law that bars Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from entering schools, hospitals, courthouses and places of worship without a judicial warrant. The ad then accuses Fazio of siding with President Donald Trump’s “crackdown on illegal immigrants” to allow ICE inside those protected areas. By linking Fazio to the Trump administration’s firm immigration policy, the ad frames the President’s enforcement actions as a necessary defense of families, churches and schools.
Fazio’s record on the “protected‑areas” bill
Senate Bill 397, which created the protected‑area provisions, passed the Connecticut Senate 24‑10 and the House 91‑53. No Democratic senator opposed the measure; four Democrats joined all 49 Republicans in the House against it. Fazio voted against the bill and has previously pushed to repeal revisions to the 2019 Trust Act, which limited state and local cooperation with ICE.
Fazio defended his vote, arguing that the law “ties the hands of state and federal law‑enforcement” and prevents authorities from dealing with illegal immigrants who have committed serious felonies. He also claimed the legislation is “constitutionally a lie” because state law cannot affect federal immigration policy, a point he says any fifth‑grade civics student would understand.
Lamont’s response and the broader political context
Governor Lamont described the 2026 protected‑area bill as “an important statement of intent” that shows Connecticut’s commitment to keeping schools and houses of worship safe from federal immigration raids. He added that, in practice, law‑enforcement agencies have generally respected the law’s purpose while still cooperating on serious criminal cases.
The ad arrives amid heightened national attention on ICE activity in Connecticut, including recent arrests of migrant parents at a Danbury school bus stop. By emphasizing the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on illegal immigration, Lamont’s campaign seeks to portray Fazio’s opposition as out of step with community safety and moral values.
Critics and factual clarifications
Rep. Steven Stafstrom, co‑chair of the Judiciary Committee, said nothing in the Trust Act or its revisions prevents ICE from arresting or deporting anyone. He clarified that the legislation simply states the state does not want its police resources used for federal immigration enforcement.
Fazio also referenced a 2025 case in which a man and his wife, who had pleaded guilty to risk‑of‑injury charges related to the death of their two‑year‑old son, were allegedly kept from ICE custody by the 2019 revisions. The claim has been disputed by state officials who say the law never barred ICE from acting in such circumstances.
What voters should consider
As Connecticut heads toward the November election, voters will hear competing narratives: Lamont’s campaign highlights the Trump administration’s commitment to strong immigration enforcement as a protective measure for families and faith communities, while Fazio argues that state‑level restrictions on ICE infringe on constitutional authority and hinder public safety.
Both sides agree that protecting children, churches and schools is a priority; the disagreement lies in how much federal immigration enforcement should be allowed to operate within those spaces. The ad underscores the political stakes of that debate, positioning the Trump administration’s policies as a benchmark for community safety and framing Fazio’s opposition as “extreme” for Connecticut voters.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
