Former New York Governor David Paterson is publicly breaking ranks with Governor Kathy Hochul and Albany Democrats over a sweeping anti-ICE legislative package that critics say will undermine local law enforcement cooperation, spark taxpayer-funded lawsuits and further deepen New York’s ongoing political and immigration battles.
Speaking Sunday, May 24th during an appearance on 77 WABC’s “Cats Roundtable” with host John Catsimatidis, Paterson directly criticized the legislation and questioned how New York Democrats arrived at what he described as a dangerous and legally questionable position.
“Last I heard, the federal government supersedes the local government,” said Paterson. “When I was governor, I tried to adhere to that.”
Paterson, who served as governor from 2008 to 2010 following the resignation of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, also previously chaired the New York State Democratic Party, making his criticism particularly notable as opposition to Hochul’s immigration agenda is surfacing from inside her own party.
The legislation at the center of the controversy dramatically limits how local governments, police departments and public employees can interact with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Among the most controversial provisions is a state-level version of a “Bivens Act,” which would allow individuals to sue ICE agents accused of violating constitutional rights, including entering homes without judicial warrants.
The package would also prohibit many public employees – including hospital staff, DMV workers and civilian employees within law enforcement agencies – from cooperating with federal immigration authorities unless ICE presents a judicial warrant.
Another provision would establish an “Office of Immigrant Trust” inside the New York Attorney General’s Office. That office, overseen by AG Letitia James, would reportedly have authority to enforce compliance with the legislation and pursue action against local governments accused of violating the new restrictions.
The measures would additionally ban federal immigration officers from wearing masks or face coverings intended to conceal their identities during enforcement operations.
The legislation further seeks to dismantle existing “287-g” agreements between local governments and federal immigration authorities. Those agreements currently allow local agencies to cooperate with ICE in holding detainees or assisting with immigration enforcement efforts.
Under the proposal, not only would those formal agreements be prohibited, but so-called “informal cooperation” could also become restricted. Critics say that could include situations where a local officer contacts ICE after encountering someone believed to be in the country illegally.
The legislation would further complicate the development of future immigration detention facilities by preventing local governments from granting zoning variances for detention centers without first undergoing a six-month public comment period.
Paterson warned the package may expose New York to legal challenges from local governments who believe Albany is improperly interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
“Nassau County, Suffolk County, the other counties around the state could ban together and bring a lawsuit against the state legislature itself, and the governor for taking this approach.”
He also expressed frustration over what he sees as the Democratic Party’s increasing willingness to challenge federal authority.
“I just don’t understand how we got into the situation we are in now,” said Patterson.
Then came his bluntest criticism of all.
“It was an egregious mistake they made.”
The legislation was first introduced by Hochul earlier this year following renewed immigration enforcement efforts under President Donald Trump.
Hochul defended the measures as necessary protections for immigrant communities and argued the state has the authority to restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
“This is where the State law would take precedence over local preference and the Attorney General’s office would be empowered to enforce as she does with other laws of the State of New York to ensure full compliance,” said Hochul during a recent press event.
However, those who oppose the law argue Hochul’s approach continues a broader Albany trend of overriding local governments while simultaneously creating more legal, financial and administrative burdens for taxpayers.
Republicans immediately seized on Paterson’s comments as evidence that even longtime Democrats are becoming alarmed by how far Albany’s immigration policies have shifted.
Bruce Blakeman praised Paterson as a “common sense” Democrat and accused Hochul of prioritizing ideology over public safety.
“Common Sense Democrats know that Kathy Hochul has made our neighborhoods less safe with her pro-criminal policies,” said Blakeman. “Governor Paterson is a sensible and thoughtful Democrat who is rightfully appalled with Hochul’s support of this dangerous legislation.”
Opposition to the law arrives as Hochul is already facing mounting criticism over affordability issues throughout New York including increasing utility costs, congestion pricing in New York City, rising taxes and growing frustration over the state’s overall cost of living.
Critics argue Albany continues focusing on politically divisive issues while residents struggle with inflation, crime concerns and increasingly expensive day-to-day life across the state.
