At his weekly press conference in his ceremonial Statehouse office, Vermont’s Republican governor made clear he believed that undocumented immigrants convicted of a crime should be deported. He was less clear about what he meant by the word “crime.”
The subject came up when WCAX-TV reporter Kyle Midura questioned Scott about public records revealed in this week’s Seven Days. The story showed that, in 2016, the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles regularly shared information with federal immigration enforcement officials about suspected undocumented immigrants. It also described an incident last September when the Vermont State Police arrested a Honduran national for drunk driving and then turned him over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
What ensued at the press conference was a surreal display. Scott declined to address the question that was asked — instead providing an answer that ended up confusing himself.
“Do you see a distinction between state police reporting someone suspected of drunk driving at more than two times the legal limit to [federal authorities] and someone who is simply applying for a license here in the state?” Midura asked. Three years ago, the state enacted a law allowing undocumented immigrants to legally seek a driver’s license without granting the recipient legal immigration status.
“Maybe I can clear this up by saying what I think should happen,” Scott replied. “If someone is convicted of a criminal act, a crime, and they are an undocumented immigrant, I think they should be deported.”
Midura: “But only upon conviction?”
Scott: “Right.”
Peter Hirschfeld of Vermont Public Radio: “Of any crime?”
Scott: “A crime, a felony crime, a crime egregious.”
Hirschfeld: “Is it any felony crime? Is it violent felony crimes? How bad a crime does it have to be for somebody to be worthy of deportation?”
Scott: “If you’re convicted of a criminal activity, they should be deported.”
Seven Days: “Criminal activity could be a misdemeanor, couldn’t it?”
Scott: “Well, now you’re getting maybe above my pay grade.”
Seven Days: “We’re just checking. You said felony.”
Scott: “I just want to be clear … Those who are involved in criminal activity and they’re convicted of such and are undocumented, I believe should be deported.”
Hirschfeld: “DUI?”
Scott: “Yeah.”
Some driving under the influence convictions are misdemeanors.
Later in the press conference, Hirschfeld sought more clarity. He asked if it was correct to say, “Gov. Phil Scott believes that anybody who’s in this country illegally should be deported if they have been convicted of a crime.”
“If they’re convicted of an egregious crime,” Scott replied.
Hesitating and realizing he didn’t know where he meant to draw the line, he promised to get back to the assembled reporters on what level of crime would warrant deportation. “In my mind, I’m talking about a criminal act of violence, of public safety,” he said.
Scott spokeswoman Rebecca Kelley did not provide that clarifying information late Thursday.
As tortured as the response was, Scott appears to have said that there is, indeed, a difference between the state’s willingness to turn over an undocumented immigrant convicted of driving drunk and one who is applying for a driver’s license.
With a simple “yes,” he could have avoided offering up an opinion he had not really solidified.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Sounds like Scott’s response did not satisfy the reporters even though it was perfectly clear and consistent with immigration policy for Presidents Bush, Obama , and now Trump. To be specific: a DWI conviction for an illegal immigrant (misdemeanor or felony) means automatic deportation because DUI is categorized as a dangerous public threat. Period. There is no equivocation for the law or the enforcement of the law. I cannot imagine too many rational adults wish to see illegals with DUI convictions hitting the road. We have more than enough native-born DUI drivers killing and maiming folks. We certainly don’t need to import any more.
Scott: Well, now youre getting maybe above my pay grade.
Actually, no, Governor, nothing is “above your pay grade”: you have the highest pay grade in the state. If memory serves me well, I remember you campaigning pretty hard for that pay grade too. Maybe its time to act like it.
The incessant need of Vermont’s media to engage in gotcha moments of Governor Scott or anyone diminishes our state. Forgotten, is that at the end of the day, we share many of the same concerns and a majority of values. Reporters should be grateful they have regular, and scheduled access to engage the Governor as he continues to set a new standard for transparency in Vermont. That transparency, while trying to be responsive to Vermont’s media clearly has a downside. It’s made worse by media’s persistent efforts to produce gotcha moments which we saw on display in the recent Press Conference. The media’s aggressiveness under the guise of seeking clarification doesn’t hold any water. Reporters in Vermont should reflect on their own behavior more frequently. If they did, we’d all be better for it.
Seriously? Asking the governor to articulate his opinion is “gotcha journalism”? Nice try…
RE: RoyPotter
If you listen to the actual Press Conference audio you would be able to experience the rapid fire peppering of questions by reporters present. Even after the Governor gave his answer, they kept coming back even after he shared he would get back to them.
Gov. Scott gave an answer that was ambiguous. The press asked for clarification. That is not “gotcha” journalism: that is journalism. It is not the problem. The problem is that Gov. Scott didn’t have an answer and tried to deflect, to save face. Because the plain, honest answer would have been this: I don’t know what I mean by the term, egregious.