To the editor:
This is a response to “Ohioans, get wise on these two state anti-immigrant bills” uploaded Sept. 10.
I want to start by acknowledging and applauding Birch Moonwoman’s letter about SB 172 and HB 26. Not only did she raise awareness to propose legislation, she included important concerns about the potential for abuse and the impact of these bills on immigrant communities —concerns that every Ohioan should take seriously. Protecting civil rights, preventing racial profiling, and ensuring due process are values we all share.
That said, some of the claims about these bills overstate or mischaracterize their provisions. SB 172, which enacts section 9.631 of the Ohio Revised Code, does not turn Ohio’s police or local officials into “round-up squads.” Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, carried out by agencies like ICE and CBP. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI), federal law already takes precedence over conflicting state or local policies, which makes one wonder why redundant laws like this are even necessary. However, experience in other cities and states has shown that some local officials choose to blatantly obstruct federal enforcement of laws they disagree with, for a variety of reasons, which is why we now have legislators proposing this “new” law in Ohio.
SB 172 ensures that local officials cannot shield someone from federal arrest or block federal agents carrying out lawful duties, but it does not authorize local officials to make arrests themselves. Constitutional protections, including the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment due process protections, remain fully in effect. Claims that the bill allows “warrantless arrests anywhere under any circumstances” are therefore misleading.
HB 26 similarly requires cooperation with federal authorities and prohibits sanctuary policies. While noncompliance can trigger a review by the Ohio Attorney General and potentially result in the loss of certain state funding, the bill does not automatically punish local governments upon a legislator’s complaint. It also does not require local officials to collect extra personal data beyond what is necessary to report suspected unlawful presence.
I share Moonwoman’s concern that these policies could be misapplied or abused. But it’s important to understand that both SB 172 and HB 26 operate within the framework of federal law and the Constitution, providing clear safeguards against arbitrary enforcement. Local officials retain all their normal duties for public safety, and federal law remains the controlling authority for immigration enforcement.
Finally, it’s worth noting that hyperbolic statements and mischaracterization of the truth, even when made with good intentions, contribute more to division than to understanding. To truly debate the merits of legislation in our country — which I fully support — requires objective, fact-based discussions grounded in evidence. When Ohioans and journalists examine bills like SB 172 and HB 26 with care and accuracy, we strengthen public discourse, protect civil liberties, and maintain the integrity of our democratic process. Only through this approach can we engage in thoughtful dialogue and make informed, rational decisions about whether to support or oppose proposed legislation—or the elected officials who introduce it.
Gabriel Spiezio
Athens, Ohio
