As we approach the transfer of power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue set for January, uncertainties continue to abound. The incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump has been given the public’s mandate to address the immigration dilemma, yet the detailed strategy remains opaque. During a campaign event in North Carolina, Trump pledged to dissolve so-called sanctuary cities and states, as reported by The Hill.
“My proposal to the Congress will be to enact a law that forbids the concept of sanctuary cities across the nation. Any jurisdiction that resists collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will face the entire force of our federal government,” The Hill reports Trump as saying.
As highlighted by Global Refuge, the term ‘sanctuary city’ is not legally defined. Rather, it has evolved over periods and recently mirrors the reaction to policies and procedures implemented by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Globalrefuge.org describes a sanctuary city as a jurisdiction, whether by formal or informal policy, that discourages local law enforcement from revealing the immigration status of individuals unless it is linked to a serious crime investigation.
Continuing, the site adds, “Such communities generally do not abide by ICE’s demand to hold unauthorized immigrants who are caught by local bodies during minor crimes or probes.” There is no legal definition of a sanctuary state, and Massachusetts does not formally identify as one.
Though not officially declared, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform has classified Massachusetts among the 11 states they perceive as sanctuary states. They base this classification on past judicial verdicts.
Eight Massachusetts localities allegedly identify themselves as sanctuary cities. These include Amherst, Boston, Cambridge, Concord, Lawrence, Newton, Northhampton, and Somerville. New Bedford, however, does not claim the status of a sanctuary city through popular vote, city council resolution, or through a public statement from Mayor Jon Mitchell.
Mayor Mitchell has consistently dismissed the portrayal of New Bedford as a sanctuary city. In conversations regarding law enforcement procedure, New Bedford Assistant Deputy Police Chief Scott Carola stated, “Our standard protocol during arrests does not involve prying into one’s immigration status.
The procedures we do follow include performing a warrant check, and when applicable, executing any active warrant authorized by a court,” Carola detailed. He also asserted that relevant ICE officials would be alerted if someone previously wanted by them is detained.
“We adhere to the current procedures and remain vigilant to see how they might evolve,” added Chief Paul Oliveira. As of now, no municipal policy in New Bedford restricts the Police Department from collaborating with ICE.
“Our authority does not extend to implementing federal immigration law,” stated Carola. He further clarified, “We are always prepared to assist any law enforcement agency upon request.”
Oliveira referred to a 2017 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the Lunn v. Commonwealth case that specifies the “legal limitations on processing federal civil immigration detainers.”
Lastly, Oliveira made reference to a memo distributed by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Inc. following the ruling. The memo reaffirms that “Massachusetts law does not acknowledge law enforcement officers’ authority to detain people based solely on a federal civil immigration detainer.”