Office for Refugees and Immigrants outlines limits of enforcement, schools' rights and travel risks

Susan Church, an attorney with the Office for Refugees and Immigrants, told attendees during a presentation that federal immigration enforcement is concentrated and limited and urged people with immigration questions to seek legal advice.

Church said immigration enforcement is carried out by multiple federal agencies with different missions: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its investigative arm Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Border Patrol, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which she described as a benefits agency. “We are constantly getting calls ... telling us basically that ICE is everywhere all the time, and it's simply not true,” Church said, adding that enforcement is typically targeted rather than nationwide sweeps.

The presentation highlighted where and how agencies can act. Church noted that CBP has broad authority within 100 miles of the border — including states such as Massachusetts — and that CBP officers may inspect phones, emails and laptops at the border. “Nobody has those privacy rights at the border,” she said. By contrast, USCIS primarily adjudicates benefits such as green cards and citizenship and is not primarily an enforcement agency, though arrests have occurred there when someone has a final order of removal.

Church described common enforcement pathways: local police fingerprinting that forwards prints to ICE (which can lead to targeted pickups), expedited removal at ports of entry, and arrests tied to final removal orders. She warned that missed immigration court hearings can trigger mandatory detention and deportation and urged people with hearings or ICE appointments to consult an immigration lawyer well before the date.

She also explained risks for noncitizen travelers and green card holders: crossings and return travel prompt CBP scrutiny and can lead to visa rescission or placement into removal proceedings if officers find evidence of “immigrant intent,” fraud, or disqualifying criminal history. Church cautioned that convictions that may be minor under state law — including some drug offenses — can have severe immigration consequences, particularly on re-entry.

Church reviewed warrants and the different documents agents may present. She urged people to check whether a document is a judicial warrant (issued by a court and signed by a judge) or an administrative ICE document (issued by Department of Homeland Security personnel and signed by an immigration officer). “You have to read these warrants carefully,” she said, and described three indicators of a judicial warrant: issued by a court, signed by a judge, and based on probable cause.

On sensitive locations and schools, Church explained that although ICE’s “sensitive locations” memo was withdrawn at the federal level, Massachusetts state law and court precedents still protect many private spaces. She cited the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the Fourth Amendment and the state case Commonwealth v. Lunn when describing privacy protections, and pointed to guidance from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office for schools. Church said schools should limit disclosure of directory information, follow district legal counsel when agents arrive, and refer law-enforcement requests to the district central office.

She encouraged schools to plan for emergencies involving students with family members of uncertain immigration status (for example, preparing lists of authorized pickup persons and ensuring custody and passport documentation). Church also directed attendees to statewide legal resource finders and a list of nonprofit and private lawyers, plus free consultation dates offered by the city of Boston.

The presentation repeatedly urged consultation with competent immigration attorneys before attending USCIS appointments, responding to ICE communications (including letters or texts giving 60-day notices), or traveling internationally.

The program included a brief reminder from an event staff member about posted legal-aid links and an offer for smaller, translated “know your rights” sessions for schools or community groups. Church closed by encouraging attendees to use the Attorney General’s guidance and available legal resources rather than rely on news reports.