Massachusetts politicians and criminal justice officials say they expect the incoming Trump administration will make good on its promises to pursue mass deportations — but exactly how remains unclear.
As state, county and city law enforcement leaders evaluate their legal options to refuse assistance — or offer it — to federal agents, competing tactics could emerge. And immigration advocates warn different policies among government agencies will breed confusion.
In a TruthSocial post Monday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared to confirm he plans to declare a national emergency and use “military assets” to deport people in the U.S. without authorization.
Earlier this month, Gov. Maura Healey said state police will not assist in any mass deportation efforts. She told MSNBC the state has several options to protect immigrants’ rights, including litigation and executive orders. Studies estimate more than 150,000 people living in Massachusetts lack legal status.
“Every tool in the toolbox,” the Democrat said, “is going to be used to protect our residents and protect our state — and certainly to hold the line to protect democracy as a basic principle, right?”
But other law enforcement agencies in the state could participate in deportations.
Republican and former Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, a hardliner on immigration who led the Trump reelection campaign in Massachusetts, expects federal agents will lead any of those efforts in the state.
“When it comes to illegal aliens coming into our communities,” Hodgson said, “they’re going to — whether or not the governor or local officials want to or not — they’re going to make sure that they’ll do everything they can to keep everyone safe.”
Some officials say that because it appears Trump’s mass deportation plans will focus on people with criminal records, those already involved with the court system or incarcerated will likely be the first affected.
This could present a challenge for federal officials. Each of the 14 sheriffs in Massachusetts sets their own policies, according to Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux, Hodgson’s Democratic successor.
“The federal government has no authority to tell a sheriff what to do,” Heroux said. “In fact, the governor has no authority to tell a sheriff what to do, because we’re all independently elected.”
Sheriffs cannot violate constitutional rights or state laws, but legal experts note they maintain primary oversight of jails and their short-term inmates. The state attorney general’s office does not oversee the facilities and cannot control whether the jails enter contracts with ICE.
Heroux, who on Monday morning announced an ICE detainee unit at his jail has been converted into a training academy and office space, said fewer than 10% of people in his custody lack legal immigration status.
Citing the U.S. Constitution, he said sheriffs cannot be required to help federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detain people.
“I’ll cooperate with the federal government,” Heroux said. “I’ll give them the information they need, but I’m not here to do their job.”
Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, a Republican, said he holds a different perspective.
He’s worked closely with ICE since he was elected in 2011 and said this year, there’s been a spike in the number of people ICE is seeking to hold at his jail compared to the roughly few dozen inmates with ICE detainers three years ago.
Evangelidis added he’s frustrated by a 2017 state Supreme Judicial Court ruling that said jails cannot hold someone solely based on immigration status, if that person would otherwise be released or post bail.
“I have no ability to hold that person beyond the processing time,” Evangelidis said. “Even if ICE is on its way and says, ‘We’ll be there in 40 minutes, hold them,’ I can’t.”
Evangelidis pointed to a case this summer of a man charged with attempted murder, kidnapping and stalking. The court released the man on $2,500 bail despite an immigration detainer against him. Federal immigration officials eventually arrested the man about a month later.
Evangelidis has asked policy-makers to give sheriffs more leeway to work with ICE.
“It would be appropriate to give, for example, myself as sheriff a 12- or 24-hour window to notify ICE and detain people beyond that for that purpose only,” Evangelidis said.
The only facility in the state with a federal contract to hold ICE detainees is the Plymouth County House of Correction. Plymouth Sheriff Joseph McDonald, also a Republican, has faced criticism for conditions at the jail. He said he did not want to speculate on what might change under a new president.
Heroux said federal dollars may be one thing that puts sheriffs on the same page.
“That’s probably the easiest, the most direct way that the federal government could impact Massachusetts is withholding those federal funds by tying their agenda to the federal funds,” Heroux said.
As for local police, who are under the jurisdiction of mayors, some city leaders say their officers will not ask about immigration status.
Mayor Michelle Wu recently reaffirmed Boston is a so-called sanctuary city; under a city ordinance, police can only aid ICE in major criminal investigations.
It is one of at least two-dozen Massachusetts communities immigration advocates say have passed similar protections. In 2017, many of these municipalities were targeted in federal immigration raids during Trump’s first term.
Wu, a Democrat, told Channel 5 cities cannot override the federal government, but they can provide some city services to all residents.
“What we can do is make sure that we are doing our part to protect our residents in every possible way, that we are not cooperating with those efforts that actually threaten the safety of everyone by causing widespread fear and having large-scale economic impact,” Wu said.
But even if city leaders do not cooperate, the incoming administration can utilize the federal court system in its deportation plans. Trump is likely to name a new Massachusetts U.S. Attorney to replace Josh Levy, the acting head of the office, in January — a move that’s customary whenever a new president takes office.
Former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, anticipates the office will take on more immigration cases than usual to help send a message.
“It will serve as a deterrent to let people know that we are going to prosecute federally anyone who gets convicted of a crime and is still in this country,” Ortiz said.
Ortiz also expects that resources will be an issue and Washington will have to prioritize how deportations will be carried out.
“You may want to process a significant number, but logistically and practically, you will be limited in what you can do,” Ortiz said.
Ortiz pointed out another potential division between the state and the feds. While the state and some municipalities have promised to protect immigrants, the U.S. attorney’s office is responsible for defending the White House in litigation over its policies.
Most leaders agreed on this: Because of its reputation as friendly to immigrants, Massachusetts will likely be a target of federal immigration actions.
