Is this the year Massachusetts declares itself a sanctuary state?

BOSTON ― Proponents of a bill proposing that Massachusetts become a "sanctuary state" — where the legal status of residents interacting with state and local law enforcement is protected from release to federal immigration officials — is a matter of ensuring the right to due process for all who live in the state.

The measure, the proponents claim, would help forge bonds of trust between local law enforcement officials and the immigrant community, taking the fear of deportation out of interactions ranging from reporting a crime to driving without a driver’s license and being arrested on a criminal offense.

“The bill has come a long way since it was first introduced in 2017,” said Amy Grunder, director of state government affairs for the Massachusetts Immigrant Refugee Advocacy Coalition, during a hearing Monday of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. “It incorporates the best advice from conversations with police chiefs, district attorneys and advocacy groups.”

The measure would not impede federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from working in the state, Grunder said, but would end federal involvement in local police investigations that hamper adjudication of crimes.

8 communities describe themselves as sanctuary cities

Eight Massachusetts communities — Amherst, Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Concord, Newton, Northampton and Somerville — have passed local legislation directing local law enforcement to refrain from divulging location and immigration status information to federal officials.

Worcester has not declared itself a sanctuary city and the city does not have any ordinances concerning the immigration status of any individual, according to a city spokesman. The Worcester Police Department does not have an official policy or practice that distinguishes people on the basis of their immigration status.

California, Maryland, New Jersey and Oregon have passed similar legislation declaring themselves sanctuary states.

In addition to barring local law enforcement from reaching out and disclosing immigration status and location information to federal officials, the bill would also sever the contract that allows ICE to deputize and train local police to enforce federal immigration policies.

Currently, only the state Department of Corrections has a signed an agreement with the federal government. Several local sheriff’s departments had signed contracts but the last of those, with Bristol and Plymouth counties, were terminated in 2021.

Speaking in favor of the companion bills introduced were Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, and Reps. Ruth Balser, D-Newton, and Manny Cruz, D-Salem, and Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan decried ICE tactics.

“They scoop them out of the courthouse,” said Ryan, adding that the state is rarely informed as to where they end up. If they appear at an immigration court, they could be released on bail and back into the community. “Once they are picked up by ICE, there is no way to get them back.”

Wendy S. Wayne, director of the Committee for Public Counsel Services Immigration Impact Unit, said there are 450 Massachusetts cases from the 18 months between January 2022 and August 2023 that are still pending because the defendants were arrested by ICE.

“They are open, unresolved; maybe the defendants were innocent, maybe the complaints against them were rescinded,” Wayne said. She believes they will never be resolved, pointing out that the victims in these cases may never have closure.

Both women pointed out that once cases are adjudicated and sentences have been served, local law enforcement can call ICE to disclose the whereabouts of a resident wanted on federal charges. Local law enforcement officers could also answer direct questions from federal authorities about whether they have a particular person in custody. However, they could not proactively divulge such information.

In discussing the measure, Eldridge described the federal immigration system as “broken.”

What are four key measures addressed by the bill?

Backers of the measure describe the following main objectives:

• Discouraging law enforcement officials from asking about immigration status, a decision usually prompted by a person’s race or ethnicity

• Giving notice to detainees held in local facilities that they have a right to refuse to meet with ICE agents and a right to hire an immigration attorney to be present if they agree to an interview

• If they appear in court on any matter, whether as a victim, witness or defendant, court officials would be barred from revealing their information to ICE agents

• Severing agreements that allow ICE to deputize and train local police to enforce federal immigration policies

“This bill simply draws a clear boundary between federal responsibilities and state and local responsibilities,” said Balser. “Local and state law enforcement already has enough on its plate."

Cruz said his mother, who migrated from the Dominican Republic and had attained a green card, endured the domestic abuse of two spouses who controlled her by threatening to report her immigration status.

“This is not uncommon in immigrant communities,” Cruz noted, adding that all residents should feel safe reporting a crime, seeking a restraining order, reporting wage theft, seeking health care and social services, and being full participants in the local economy.

His experiences were echoed by Sen. Liz Miranda, D-Boston, who also grew up in a mixed-status household with roots in Cape Verde.

“My brother and father were deported as I walked onto the campus of Wellesley College,” Miranda said.

Concern about criminality

Boston resident John Thompson of the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform said the greatest threat to immigrant communities was criminal migrants who victimized their own compatriots, and said allowing ICE to do its job benefits everyone.

Citing a 1996 act signed by former President Bill Clinton that supported deportations for felonious behavior, he also declared that “the government does not remove residents except for serious offenses.”

Quoting former President Donald Trump, Thompson said the government was focused on “really serious crimes, not motor vehicle violations. No one has been deported for being here illegally, only if they commit a serious crime.”

However, a New York law firm specializing in immigration proceedings, Richards/Jurusik, on its website declares that the top two reasons for deportation are overstaying a visa or being in the country illegally. Criminal activity and being deemed a public safety threat were then followed by immigration fraud or misrepresentation — marrying a citizen to obtain a green card.

On its website, ICE states that 92% of those removed from the U.S. in 2020 — some 185,884 people — had criminal convictions, leaving roughly 14,000 removed for other, unspecified reasons.

Ryan spoke of an incident in Lowell, an early-morning four-alarm fire. A frontline worker on his way to work saw the smoke and without hesitation entered the building to awaken the sleeping resident, she said.

“He worried that the call he had made to 911 to alert the fire department would be traced back to his phone and ICE would be alerted and he would be deported,” Ryan said, adding he should have been hailed as a hero.

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Massachusetts sanctuary state? Supporters hope it happens this year