City Councilors Worried ‘Boston Trust Act’ Doesn’t Do Enough To Protect Illegal Immigrants

Boston city councilors are considering ways to expand the scope of a city ordinance that limits cooperation by Boston police with federal immigration authorities.The Boston Trust Act, enacted in 2014 and amended in 2019, doesn’t go far enough, some council members and immigration advocates said Monday..The hearing occurred five days after Boston Mayor Michelle Wu defended the ordinance during an at-times hostile congressional hearing in Washington D.C., on Wednesday, March 5.The point of the hearing at Boston City Hall on Monday was to “understand the areas of opportunity to expand outside of what already exists by law,” said city councilor Julia Mejia, the sponsor of the council order that led to the hearing.“It was also really important for us to recognize that the mayor went to D.C. and did an amazing job in standing up for immigrants. And standing in solidarity, we were here in the city of Boston affirming the work that she was doing on behalf of our undocumented loved ones,” Mejia said during the hearing Monday, March 10.The Boston Trust Act ordinance allows Boston police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities if an illegal immigrant has been arrested on charges of having committed certain crimes defined by federal law as an “aggravated felony,” but a guest witness suggested the list is too long.“When you follow those breadcrumbs, it's supposed to be about aggravated felonies. But then when you read that law at the federal level, you will find that that law under aggravated felonies includes things like shoplifting. And I don't know about you, but I do not define stealing bread or deodorant or baby formula as an aggravated felony,” said Neenah Estrella-Luna, a consultant invited to testify as part of a panel before the Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee of the Boston City Council.The federal definition of “aggravated felony” includes “a theft offense … for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.”Estrella-Luna also suggested that if the federal Drug Enforcement Agency chooses to define drug trafficking as including marijuana, which is illegal under federal law but legal under Massachusetts state law, then U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement might target illegal immigrants who work in the state’s marijuana industry and get Boston police to cooperate.“So could they go after a delivery driver of perfectly-legal-in-Massachusetts consumer marijuana products? Yeah, probably. They could try. Because it's under the law as an aggravated felony, which our law enforcement is allowed to cooperate with. Is that what we really want? I don't want that,” Estrella-Luna said.She also called for specifying what non-police city employees can and can’t do with respect to immigrants.Some supporters of the ordinance said many immigrants who are in the country without permanent residency are afraid to go to work or drop their kids off at school, and that some are staying away from restaurants, barber shops, and church, for fear that federal immigration officers will nab them.While most of the witnesses who testified during the three-hour-plus hearing supported expanding the Boston Trust Act, a few testified in favor of cooperating with federal immigration authorities.Henry Barbaro, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, which supports restrictions on immigration, said Boston city councilors aren’t up front with city residents about their actual aims when it comes to immigration.“I'm not here to argue the particulars of the Boston Trust Act. I simply want to point out why I believe the Boston Trust Act is so contentious. It's because the Boston City Council is being unclear about the beliefs and goals that you hold surrounding this law. First, the city council does not fully differentiate between legal and illegal migrants. And you don't support the full enforcement of federal immigration law,” Barbaro said.“In the council's view, if any migrant is in our country, even if they got here illegally, then you want them to stay. That is an open borders outlook on America,” he said.He called on city council members to acknowledge that they support no restrictions on immigration. “If the City Council does not believe in open borders, then what do you believe in? Do you have a target for how many migrants can come and stay in our country illegally?” Barbaro said. “The voters are confused. If they believe in the enforcement of federal immigration law, then they are told they are racist and anti-immigrant. So why doesn't the city council admit they support open borders? I believe you should stop hiding behind some civil rights argument and tell the plain truth so that the voters know what they're dealing with,” Barbaro said.Ed Flynn, a member of the city council who often clashes with the administration of Mayor Wu, said city officials, including himself, are generally pro-immigrant and that “We don't want to harm neighbors who have been here for generations in part of the community working difficult jobs in our kitchens and hotels, paying local taxes.”He said that city officials also “want them to feel safe to report crimes” without fearing they will be deported.“And at the same time,” he said, “it is also important that we ensure the safety of our city and our residents when it comes to serious and violent crimes, as well. It is critical, and I think we all agree, that when someone commits a crime, regardless of immigration status, that we don't stand in the way of justice for the victim, the survivor, or their family. We must respect the rule of law in society and our neighbors.”He said the city council’s subcommittee ought to have a hearing that includes law enforcement officials – including the feds.“I don't have a clear understanding of the Trust Act. I don't have a clear understanding of sanctuary city, what it does do, what it doesn't do. What impact it has, how it impacts residents, how it impacts undocumented residents. But I do think as part of those questions, I do think we have to have a conversation, as difficult as it may be, with Boston police, with the state police, and with federal officials,” Flynn said.He also suggested that important facts have not been nailed down.For instance: How often has U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked Boston police for a civil detainer request that Boston police ignored because of the Boston Trust Act?For calendar year 2024, the feds and the city police provided wildly different numbers for that statistic.“Boston Police said it was 15, while the Immigration and Custom Enforcement said it was around 198,” Flynn said. “In the interest of transparency, it is important that our body in the public are provided with clarification.”

City Councilors Worried ‘Boston Trust Act’ Doesn’t Do Enough To Protect Illegal Immigrants

Related Stories