Proposed Legislation ‘An All-Out Assault’ on Law and Order in Massachusetts
The proposal would … “ban police and court personnel from asking individuals about their immigration status.”
If a new bill currently under consideration by the Massachusetts legislature becomes law, the Bay State will join Illinois and Oregon as one of the most extreme sanctuary states in the U.S.
Local media outlet Boston.com reported Sunday that state lawmakers are weighing passage of the Safe Communities Act, a proposal that would add new protections for illegal immigrants, whom sponsors of the bill claim are living in abject fear amid the Trump administration’s deportation efforts.
Approval of the SCA would be disastrous for the state. Just as the ironically named Inflation Reduction Act hid its true intent, the deceptively named Safe Communities Act would make Massachusetts a far more dangerous place.
The SCA is described on the government’s website as an effort to “protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents.” That includes the “rights” of those who have violated federal law by entering the U.S. illegally.
Companion versions of this bill have been filed in the Senate by State Sens. James Eldridge and Liz Miranda, and in the House by State Reps. Manny Cruz and Priscila Sousa. All four of these lawmakers are Democrats.
A fact sheet from the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA Coalition) starts with the following premise:
It’s time to end the voluntary involvement of our public safety officials in civil immigration matters. … Because civil immigration enforcement is not our job.
The new federal administration will use every tool available to deport members of our immigrant communities, including our police and courts. This misuse of public safety resources drives a wedge between immigrant communities and the public institutions that protect and serve them.
According to the fact sheet, the proposal centers around four key provisions intended to bolster public safety in matters involving civil immigration, which would:
-
Ban police and court personnel from asking individuals about their immigration status.
-
Require officials to obtain “written, informed consent” from immigrants held in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prior to being interviewed.
-
Prohibit officials from contacting ICE “about a person’s pending release from custody, except at the end of a sentence of incarceration.”
-
Prevent local police and sheriffs from becoming involved in federal immigration enforcement.
What could possibly go wrong?
The MIRA Coalition noted that California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington state have already enacted similar laws that allow local law enforcement to “focus on public safety, not civil immigration enforcement.”
Boston media outlet MassLive reported that lawmakers held a hearing on the bill last Tuesday:
Fear among immigrant communities in Massachusetts has only intensified in recent months as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have sharply increased arrests in the state and across the country, and that anxiety is heightened for immigrants not only at their workplaces, but at shelters, hospitals and train stations.
Communities across the state have enacted similar policies, but the bill would create a statewide standard, according to Eldridge.
Touting the considerable backing the bill has already received, the MIRA Coalition claimed that, as of November 30, 23 state senators and 67 state representatives ‘officially support’ the Safe Communities Act.
What the group leaves out is that there are 160 representatives in the state House. (Of those, 134 are Democrats, 25 are Republicans, and one is unaffiliated.)
If only 67 representatives currently support the legislation, that means 93 others, a majority of 58%, oppose it. And that includes 50% of the Democratic representatives. Could it be that even some Democrats grasp how dangerous passage of the SCA would be for the people they represent?
The bill would likely pass the Senate [23 out of 40 senators have endorsed the bill so far].
However, unless House Democrats can whip up an additional 14 votes, the bill would fail.
One Bostonian’s reaction to the SCA in the X post below, reflects how many of us feel:
The “Safe Communities Act” is nothing but an all-out assault on law and order. If this bill passes, Massachusetts becomes the most extreme sanctuary state in America…
– Police are banned from asking about anyone’s immigration status.
– All local cooperation with ICE is outright forbidden.
– NO police department, sheriff, or town can opt out, EVER.
– Even criminal illegal aliens get shielded.
Gov. Healey and her radical AG, Campbell, will be handcuffing law enforcement, protecting repeat offenders, and spitting in the face of federal law. The Left wants open borders and zero accountability, no matter the cost to your safety or your community.
Massachusetts is being sacrificed on the altar of far-left insanity.
The "Safe Communities Act" is nothing but an all-out assault on law and order. If this bill passes, Massachusetts becomes the most extreme sanctuary state in America…
– Police are banned from asking about anyone’s immigration status.
– All local cooperation with ICE is… https://t.co/je44Mje058— Apple Lamps (@lamps_apple) November 30, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
prohibiting speech is a 1st amendment violation
Sorry, but no.
The Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), ruled that public employees do not have a First Amendment protection for speech issued as part of their official duties.
Other well known examples of First Amendment restrictions on speech include the Hatch Act, which prohibits political campaigning while on the clock by Federal employees. Most local jurisdictions and state jurisdictions have similar laws. Another example is proselytizing for a certain religion while on the clock. (That would be a two-fer within the First Amendment – banning speech and banning a certain aspect of a religion.)
There is also the well know restriction of military members and ex-military from wearing a uniform while making political statements. The First Amendment does not apply to that speech either.
There can be and are legal restrictions that may be imposed on speech in regards to government employees.
I don’t believe the Hatch act has ever been enforced although there are plenty of examples where it could have been attempted.
I believe that the employee would be told “don’t do that as it violates the Hatch Act” and they stop the activity.
I know of several cases in my county where government employees violated the state law on political activity on government time and were simply told “knock it off” and were not prosecuted..
Then again, you may be right. 🙂
Prosecution is rarely, if ever, needed. Hatch Act violations (Federally) have led to separations. Usually the employee is counseled about the violation and they don’t do it again. If they choose to ignore the warning, the one I’ve observed resulted in action taken to separate the employee.
No, it is not a violation, because the government is acting as an employer, and employers are entitled to restrict their employees’ speech when they’re speaking for the employer.
Government entities are entitled to have opinions, and it may require their employees, when speaking for them, to support those opinions and not to say anything contrary to them.
It’s exactly the same as the fact that public school teachers (but not college professors) are not allowed to lead prayers when acting in their official capacity, and this doesn’t infringe their freedom of speech. They’re free to lead prayers when off the job and off the site.
Teachers are free to lead prayers or participate in prayers when off the job. The “location” has nothing to do with it.
Quoting the US Department of Education:
School employees may engage in personal prayer during working hours when they are not acting in their official capacities and so long as the employee does not compel, coerce, persuade, or encourage students to join in the employee’s religious expression. For example, school employees may pray during their lunch or in a faculty lounge to the same extent they may engage in other personal expression or nonreligious activities.
See also Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Teachers are allowed to be a part of a religious club (such as a Bible club) and participate in such activities as “See You At the Pole.”
Teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and this protection extends to religious expression like prayer.
The location has something to do with it. It must be absolutely clear to students that the teacher is acting in a personal capacity and not in their position as a teacher. The fact that the final bell has rung doesn’t automatically convey that message.
In Lemon v Kurtzman, the Supreme Court set up a three pronged test for religious activities.
The decision’s test was “The test for determining whether a law meets the requirements of the Establishment Clause is whether it has a legitimate secular purpose, does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and does not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. ”
Notice what is missing…….the location of the religious activity.
As I previously stated, the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District said the State of Washington could not penalize a teacher / football coach for praying after a game in the middle of the field. Other coaches and players were allowed to participate in the prayer.
The School District tried to offer the same reasoning that you are – that the prayer needed to be in a less conspicuous location, preferably one where Kennedy would not be seen,
The Court struck down that reasoning stating
“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the free exercise and free speech clauses of the First Amendment,………”
. . . .
“And the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.”
You seem to think that protected speech can barred from a location based on the content of that speech.
The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Again, the location has something to do with it. It’s part of the context of the speech, which determines whether students will perceive the teacher as speaking in an official or private capacity. And it’s that total context that determines whether the school may/must prevent it.
If the legal speech (ie prayer) is made during the time when the teacher is not acting in an official capacity, the school cannot regulate the content of that speech.
It does not matter the perception of the student. What matters are the rights of the teacher.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has ruled against your position and belief.
They want murderers in their states
The citizens must pay to be abused by the aliens and government
Their government
This has got to come to a boiling point
All Federal monies must be stopped immediately upon the passing of this legislation
Any cut would be unconstitutional unless Congress explicitly said so. And even then it would be unconstitutional for Congress to cut all funding; the cut must be small enough that the state is merely persuaded to change its ways, but not compelled. See South Dakota v Dole.
If illegal aliens are not living in abject fear of deportation, we’re doing something wrong.
If it passes, the ICE should withdraw enforcement from Boston and Springfield and let those cities be undeclared “safe zone”. Beacon Hill would be a good place for shelters.
“whom sponsors of the bill claim are living in abject fear amid the Trump administration’s deportation efforts.”
“Who,” not “whom.” Subject of “are living,” not the object of “claim.”
A good rule when tempted to type “whom” is to use “who.” It’s acceptable in modern English for both cases except after fronted prepositions. “For whom the bell tolls,” but “who the bell tolls for” is okay.
That way you avoid the fairly severe mistake of using “whom” when it’s wrong.
Thurber says “whom” should be used when a note of dignity of austerity is wanted, mocking the mistake.
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3955
🙄🙄🙄
Thank you, Herr Grammar Nazi.
Better would be “who, sponsors of the bill claim, are living in abject fear”
A reasonable comma clause.
If law enforcement cannot deal with hostile foreign invaders the same way that they deal with suspected American criminals; it shows which side the government is on. If you are an LEO in such a jurisdiction, it is time to leave. If you have a business in such an area, it is time to move it and its assets out of there. If you and yours do not want the added risk, it is time to leave. And doing any commercial business in such jurisdiction is not worth the risk.
Subotai Bahadur
Or…you can stay and fight fight fight like a patriot.
You can start by voting smarter
I do vote smart. They just manufacture 3 votes opposite of mine. The problem here isn’t the conservatives who challenge election legitimacy, but the liberals who go along with it without question.
The tide will turn when the Portland millenials realize that supporting illegals means that their rent is $500 a month higher than it should be if the presence of said illegals wasn’t driving demand. But then, that would require being taught “proper” economics in school and having an ability to think logically.
“sponsors of the bill claim are living in abject fear amid the Trump administration’s deportation efforts”. If the state were to lead the ICE agents to the criminally minded illegal aliens, that would focus the attention of the ICE agents where all would benefit, Also, there is a zero cost self deportation process that allows for a potential legal reentry.
“Abject fear?” Good. And since when are states allowed to ignore federal law and the supremacy clause?
They are not ignoring either of those things. On the contrary, they are exercising their constitutional right to do exactly this. Congress can’t make any law to prevent them, and therefore hasn’t.
Well, they are directing State officials to ignore federal law…so how is that not a violation? Last time I checked that was a no no. We’ve had so many decades of this pretend nonsense regarding enforcement of immigration law that it makes one’s head spin.
No, they are not directing state officials to ignore federal law, because there is no such federal law, and there can’t be. Congress has no authority to make such a law, which is why it hasn’t.
The states have a constitutional right to do exactly what MA is doing, and this is absolutely fundamental to our federal republic. It’s been a linchpin of our freedoms for over two centuries. You don’t get to overturn it now just because you disagree with MA’s political opinions.
Wouldn’t the Supremacy Clause apply here? When state laws and federal law conflict, federal law prevails.
Aren’t there federal laws regarding citizenship and immigration, as well as residency?
Not for nothing but social security numbers are key for identification. Every record has one and they’re collected as part of initial interviews. Their immigration status is never a secret. They just don’t want you to talk about it.
In other words, don’t believe your lying eyes
“Fear among immigrant communities in Massachusetts has only intensified in recent months as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have sharply increased arrests in the state and across the country, and that anxiety is heightened for immigrants not only at their workplaces, but at shelters, hospitals and train stations.”
Back when I was working, had I ever said or written something such as the above, my boss would immediately have said, “Show me the data, don’t tell me your opinion.”
As an unfortunate MA resident (for now). I’ve grown to expect such insanity.
Hmmm. Leave it to the People’s Republic of MA to do this.
The police routinely demand identification, and citizenship status is part of the identification. Knowing MA, they will ban that as well.
Meh, if they continue with this folly then set up immigration enforcement checkpoints within the 100 miles from the border. Atlantic seaboard gonna be riddled with them as it seems these deep blue States are determined not to make things easier, less disruptive and less intrusive with cooperation at local Jails, Courts and Prisons to bring unlawful aliens into ICE custody. Obviously these checkpoints will cause brief delays in travel while ID are checked, interviews are conducted. I’m sure the people of Mass will totes understand and wouldn’t dream of interfering with CPB/ICE operations at these checkpoints that would only create longer and more permanent delays and disruptions to their community as additional NG would be deployed to provide additional security …such as secondary and tertiary control points in advance of CPB/ICE checkpoints and mass arrests of those who choose to unlawfully obstruct Fed LEO. Probably run outta room locally to hold and process these folks so no whining when sent to a secure Federal facility in Louisiana, Florida, Alabama.
Seems to be a decent “out of the box thinking” idea.
Start shipping all illegal aliens there now. See how they like it.
“protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents.”
All? This is a joke. What about the victims of the residents that are here illegally, using resources or doing crimes? Huh?
This saves safety by destroying it, just like the double-speak with democracy.
Stupid and pathetic. And to think Massachusetts population was one of the leaders in our independence from England. The state for sure going downhill to its demise.
Government by lesbianism.
Fellow gubernatorial Sapphite, Tina Kotex, of Oregon is threatening to arrest and imprison ICE agents. Time for Maura to show who’s top dyke.
One of the reasons I left Oregon. There were many.
It’s not an assault on law and order. The end game is the 2030 census where the number of illegals will affect the way congressional districts are apportioned. Deep blue states lost population over the years (which reduced the number of their electoral votes) and illegal immigration is a way to bring those EV’s back up.
Arguing public safety, compassion or states rights is missing the forest for the trees.
And that, children, is why residents of that state are referred to as “Massholes.”
Which is deeply insulting to the more than one-third of us who voted for Trump three times. That is a very large number of people. All the state and federal districts have been gerrymandered to favor election of Democrats, Demonizing those who are victimized by two-thirds of their neighbors is not helpful.
Nah.
The people who voted Trump in Massachusetts call them ‘massholes’ too.
Neither I nor anyone I know does. Do you live here?
Here’s a thought: During the Civil War residents of Confederate States retained their US citizenship, but did not have US citizenship rights until after the war and the end of Reconstruction. The Confederate states had refused to abide with US laws and the citizens of the states had no access to US Courts, no rights to vote in US elections, no Representatives or Senators in Washington. Their states were subject to trade embargoes, their CSA-issued passports were rarely recognized by other countries. Should the Massachusetts government pass a law refusing cooperation with federal laws, then Massachusetts should be deemed as effectively seceded from the Union, their Congressional and Senatorial representatives removed and the rights of Mass. citizens to vote in federal elections terminated for the duration.
On the contrary, what you are proposing is a rebellion against the US constitution, and makes you the one whose rights should be terminated.
Our constitution guarantees the states the right to refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Congress cannot compel their cooperation. The administration certainly cannot do so. This is one of our most basic freedoms, that we have upheld for more than two centuries. You don’t get to overturn it now just because you disagree with a state’s policy.
Massachusetts is a LOST CAUSE.
Signed, a resident of Florida who evacuated from MA 3 years ago.
I’ve become convinced that Oregon’s extremism is based on maintain it’s blue grip on government. I think the purpling is fading to red and they need these bodies to help hide the vote fraud.
“The new federal administration will use every tool available to deport members of our immigrant communities, including our police and courts”
Considering how useless they are in MA, maybe a good idea to deport the police and courts as well.
I wonder if this enters into Harboring territory