The Farce of Connecticut’s Legal Defiance

Ryan Fazio's "Potomac Two Step" - Care to dance ?

If there were ever an Olympic event for legalistic gaslighting, Connecticut would be in medal contention, led by its most ambitious competitors: State Attorney General William Tong and his newest apprentice in constitutional defiance, State Senator Ryan Fazio. And while one might assume that a Republican like Fazio would stand against Democratic efforts to create de facto sanctuary policies, it turns out that in the post-Trump era, political labels are as slippery as the logic used to defend them.

On the one hand, we have William "Resistance Hero" Tong, whose most notable legal strategy seems to be screaming at the sky every time federal immigration authorities dare to enforce existing law. Tong, of course, is the same man who has proudly declared Connecticut a bastion against Trump-era immigration policies, going so far as to actively defy federal law in the name of "moral justice"—which, conveniently, aligns with whatever the state’s ruling party has decided is politically expedient at the moment. Connecticut is a state laws? Phhht.

And on the other hand, (Republican) Ryan Fazio, whose latest legal adventure—a proposal to partially repeal the Trust Act—seems, at first glance, like an attempt to realign Connecticut with constitutional norms. But upon closer inspection, Fazio’s carefully curated language is less about restoring law and order and more about playing politics with the illusion of public safety.

Fazio would like you to think that he's advocating for law enforcement cooperation solely to address criminality. What he’s not telling you, however, is that the very act of being here without permission is a violation. That little detail seems to have escaped the legislator’s lofty oratory. Does his proposed bill simply want to “enhance” law enforcement’s powers? Or is he just playing his own game of legal musical chairs, trying to obscure the inconvenient fact that migrating illegally is a federal violation, and asking local police to participate in a federal immigration crackdown could very well be unconstitutional?

The Banality of Political Opportunism

Ryan Fazio’s attempt to reform the Trust Act while refusing to address its fundamental illegality is, in many ways, worse than the open defiance of William Tong. At least Tong owns his lawlessness, standing proudly in his role as Connecticut’s chief defier of federal law. Fazio, on the other hand, is engaging in a political shell game, trying to appease both sides while ultimately reinforcing the very firewall he claims to oppose.

If he were serious about law and order, he would be leading the charge to hold Connecticut’s officials accountable for flouting federal mandates—not playing legislative footsie with Democrats who see the Trust Act as a vehicle for soft-secession from federal immigration enforcement.

In the end, Fazio’s so-called “conservatism” is just another shade of Connecticut’s creeping lawlessness, and his refusal to fully challenge William Tong’s sanctuary-state ambitions proves that he is not a true defender of constitutional law, but merely a participant in its slow erosion. Sad but true.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Ryan Fazio isn’t a conservative warrior. He’s just another cog in the Connecticut machine—one that prioritizes political optics over the rule of law.

Bipartisan Charade

Fazio, in what can only be described as a political pratfall worthy of a Shakespearean fool, has somehow found himself aligned with the same Democratic officials who have been working tirelessly to defy federal immigration law. His proposal is wrapped in a veneer of common sense—after all, shouldn’t police be allowed to cooperate with ICE when dealing with gang members, DUI offenders, and violent criminals?—but beneath the surface, his position is riddled with contradictions, omissions, and, quite frankly, deliberate obfuscation of what’s really at stake. And it’s WILLIAM Shakespeare Ryan, not “Bill”.

While his Democratic colleagues, including AG William Tong, gleefully craft a firewall between Connecticut law enforcement and federal agencies, Fazio's carefully hedged position avoids the elephant in the room: illegal immigration is a violation of federal law, period. There is no asterisk, no footnote, no special carve-out for "otherwise law-abiding" individuals who just happen to be here in violation of U.S. statutes. Yet, in a stunning display of rhetorical gymnastics, Fazio’s bill only targets the most egregious offenders while leaving untouched the broader systemic refusal of Connecticut’s officials to comply with any meaningful enforcement of immigration law.

A Masterclass in State-Sanctioned Defiance: The Tong Effect.

To fully appreciate the absurdity of Connecticut’s legal stance on immigration, one must turn to the pseudo intellectual tour de fart that is William Tong, the state’s chief blow hard law enforcement officer who, ironically, seems to have zero interest in enforcing any actual law when it conflicts with his ideological commitments. Can you say MARXIST? *Cough.

Tong has made his career on loudly and proudly opposing federal immigration enforcement, treating Trump-era border security measures as a personal affront to his progressive utopia. In his exquisitely performative legal tantrums, he has sued the federal government at every turn, vowing to shield Connecticut’s “most vulnerable” (read: anyone residing in the state illegally) from the big, bad enforcement mechanisms of the U.S. government.

And here’s where the Fazio-Tong alliance—one that neither man will openly acknowledge—begins to take shape. By advocating a watered-down repeal of the Trust Act, Fazio isn't truly challenging the Democratic establishment’s sanctuary-state agenda. Instead, he’s co-opting their language, tacitly conceding that Connecticut should remain a partial sanctuary for illegal immigrants—just not the ones who have committed “serious” crimes.

This is, of course, music to Tong’s ears, as it allows the state’s Democrats to keep the Trust Act largely intact while conceding just enough ground to Fazio to maintain the illusion of bipartisanship. Connecticut gets to continue pretending it is above federal law while Fazio gets to play the role of the “reasonable” conservative willing to compromise with lawless progressives. Feeling betratyed yet? Oh we’re not done yet.

The legal implications of Connecticut’s immigration defiance should be obvious to anyone who has ever skimmed the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear: federal law trumps state law, period. Connecticut’s Trust Act—especially in its 2019 iteration—directly undermines federal enforcement of immigration law, and Fazio’s failure to call this out explicitly is either stunningly naïve or deliberately dishonest. Federal A.G. Pam Bondi will likely be seeing a memo on her desk in foreseeable furute.

Here’s the legal case against Fazio, Tong, and Connecticut’s firewall against federal law enforcement:

1. Obstruction of Federal Law – By enacting state policies that prohibit law enforcement from complying with federal immigration detainers, Connecticut officials (including Tong and local police chiefs) are actively obstructing federal enforcement, which could open them up to litigation under the Supremacy Clause.

2. Violation of Federal Preemption – Immigration enforcement falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. The Trust Act—which limits local law enforcement’s ability to comply with ICE—creates a direct conflict between state and federal law, meaning a lawsuit could be filed to challenge its validity.

3. Failure to Uphold Constitutional Oaths – Both William Tong and Ryan Fazio have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution the laws of the United States, and yet, Tong actively encourages resistance to federal mandates, while Fazio refuses to fully confront the implications of what he’s supporting. A case could be made that they are failing their constitutional duties by knowingly advancing or sustaining policies that violate federal law.

It appears that Connecticut State Senator Ryan Fazio is launching a new political venture: A farce - a tragicomic performance of lawmaking designed to both pander to local elites and undermine the very system of governance that elected him. His latest endeavor? Championing a bill to repeal the Trust Act—a law that, in his view, should allow state and local law enforcement to “freely cooperate” with federal immigration authorities, notably ICE. Fazio's stance, couched in the rhetoric of public safety, conveniently sidesteps a rather inconvenient truth: his proposal fundamentally flouts the federal law that governs immigration, and worse, appears to endorse an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to immigration status. And who among the Republicans in the Greenwich / Stamford area can be counted to comport to the policies that Republicans overwhelmingly voted for? A national moratorium on illegals that have violated our laws is what was voted for and the likes of Fazio, and most likely Tina Courpus and First Selectman Fred Camillo are defying your and undermining your vote and their Constitutional oath & duty to faithfully uphold the law.

Fazio’s argument and the elaborate con he’s attempting to sell is an argument so riddled with contradictions that it almost seems like it was written by a committee of spin doctors who specialize in political doublespeak. The essence of his position is simple: local law enforcement, in Fazio’s world, should be free to assist federal authorities in detaining people who have committed serious crimes—irrespective of whether or not those individuals are in the U.S. illegally. But as he omits from his impassioned speeches, immigrating illegally is itself a violation of federal law.

Connecticut - The Safe Space for Crime

To hear Fazio drone on and on about how bad crime is and actinig like he’s actaully interested in doing something about it we should be grateful for his gallant attempt to balance the interests of public safety with the enforcement of immigration law, especially when federal agencies such as ICE need the help of local police to deal with gang members or criminals who happen to be undocumented. Isn’t it just so reasonable to believe that if a crime is committed, the color of the criminal’s passport should be irrelevant? But wait—did we just gloss over the part where entering the country illegally is already a crime under federal law? At least with the Democrats you know damn skippy they won’t do a thing about crime so you never have to worry about their mouths writing checks their ass can’t cash.

A Contradiction Wrapped in a Lie

You’d be forgiven for thinking Fazio’s bill is a heartwarming attempt to ensure that the state’s law enforcement has the right to focus on “serious criminals.” Fazio is clearly staking his position on the idea that most immigrants aren’t criminals. Sure. We can give him that. But the real con here is that his position will inevitably target those who haven’t committed crimes beyond their immigration violation, thus expanding local police involvement in federal immigration enforcement. Isn’t that the opposite of what we’re supposed to do in a country governed by the rule of law? Seems legislators don’t acually need to vote on bills any longer they jsut tell what their ideas are and voilla !!! They think a new law into existence and we’re supposed to just roll over and accept it. And the sad truth is many Connecticut residents are actaully that stupid. They question nothing.

As if that weren't enough, Fazio, in his infinite wisdom or should we call it scheming, has also enlisted the help of local officials to stand against federal law. Greenwich Police Chief Heavey, for example, echoes the same melodramatic “we’re just here to protect people” rhetoric while pledging not to ask immigration status when handling victims or witnesses of crime. Isn’t that a noble sentiment? But here’s the real kicker: Heavey’s department, under the Trust Act, is precisely supposed to avoid cooperating with ICE unless a judicial warrant is present. That’s not “ignoring” the law; that’s respecting it.

So, Fazio and his allies are essentially arguing for a borderline anarchic interpretation of public safety—one that cherry-picks which laws to enforce, all while aligning with Democratic leadership whose motives often run counter to constitutional principles. It’s almost as if Fazio is secretly channeling his inner libertarian—except, of course, when it comes to getting cozy with federal executive orders he disagrees with.

The Lawsuit Potential:

Now, let’s get into the fun part—the part where Fazio’s legal acumen could come into question. His attempts to override the Trust Act, and to enlist local officials in ignoring federal mandates, could present the basis for a robust lawsuit.

First, consider the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This is where it gets dicey for Fazio. By attempting to remove the limitations imposed by the Trust Act—which, let’s not forget, is designed to protect state residents from unnecessary entanglements with ICE—he might very well be setting himself up for a constitutional challenge. You don’t get to cherry-pick which parts of federal law you’re going to follow, especially when it comes to immigration. So, should Fazio’s bill pass, the state could soon find itself facing a lawsuit, not just from immigrant advocates, but from anyone who believes in the constitutional supremacy of federal law.

But the fun doesn't stop there. You could also argue that Fazio is acting against the very constituents he’s supposed to represent. After all, it’s hard to see how his bill serves the interests of his own district, especially when the majority of his constituents probably don’t want their local police dragging immigrants off to federal detention simply because their paperwork isn’t in order. Imagine that: the heartless nature of turning people over to a system that cares little for the nuances of their lives. This, of course, could lead to a backlash that undermines his political legitimacy in the long term.

Creating a Firewall Against the Constitution - Not a smart move Senator.

What Fazio has unwittingly done is propose a firewall between his state and federal law enforcement that not only undermines executive orders issued by President Trump but also flies in the face of the very essence of constitutional order. If the state of Connecticut, under Fazio’s proposed repeal, is allowed to simply ignore the federal government’s right to enforce immigration law, that creates an untenable precedent: a scenario where state governments can begin to pick and choose which federal laws they’re going to follow.

That’s not a position that any self-respecting legislator should be comfortable with, particularly one who’s sworn to uphold the Constitution. But Fazio’s latest charade suggests otherwise.

In the grand scheme of things, Fazio’s actions are less about law and order and more about political opportunism. He’s chosen to side with state Democratic officials who are willing to flout federal law, not because it makes Connecticut safer, but because it plays well with certain segments of the electorate—segments who, incidentally, may also believe the rules don’t apply to them, especially when it comes to the law of the land. So, as he continues to prattle on about protecting public safety, let’s not forget the elephant in the room: illegal immigration is still, in fact, illegal.

Maybe the next time Fazio and his allies try to rewrite the rules, they’ll first pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution—or, at the very least, read the federal law they’re attempting to undercut. Because no amount of political theater can cover up the fact that the Trust Act is there for a reason: to prevent local law enforcement from becoming complicit in a federal overreach. Fazio’s proposed repeal is nothing short of a direct challenge to that framework—and, ironically, a violation of the very Constitution he swore to uphold.