State legislators heard detailed accounts on how immigrants in Massachusetts enter and experience ICE detention during a joint informational hearing at the State House.

Leah Hastings, an attorney who runs the Immigrant Detention Conditions Project at Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, told the committee that "the primary way people end up in ICE detention in Massachusetts is through contact with the criminal legal system" — including traffic stops, arrests, court processing and incarceration. Hastings described persistent problems at local lockups contracted to ICE, naming medical-care gaps, use of solitary confinement for people with mental‑health and substance‑use needs, and transfers that limit access to counsel and treatment.

Hastings and other witnesses described the Plymouth County House of Correction as a focal point. "Plymouth has about 500 beds, contracted with ICE," Hastings said, and she estimated the contract per‑person payment at just over $200 per day. David Albright of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action told the committee that as of a September data point 449 people were held at Plymouth and warned of a broader national expansion of agreements that embed federal enforcement into local systems.

Committee members pressed witnesses about attorney access and logistics. Hastings explained that at many DOC sites attorneys can set up video calls directly through facility channels, but at Plymouth the only remote-access vendor available is JurisLink, which she said "charges, I believe, over $100 per hour" for an attorney to schedule a video call with a client — a cost that can deter representation. Members noted that the legislature has begun funding an immigrant legal defense initiative but that recruitment and on‑the‑ground implementation remain limited.

Witnesses asked lawmakers to consider legislative and budgetary steps: prohibit additional intergovernmental bed contracts, require stronger oversight and reporting on detainee counts and transfers, and expand and accelerate funding that places counsel before removal or transfer. Hastings urged redirecting state resources away from expanding carceral capacity and toward housing, health care and legal support for impacted families.

The panel and members agreed on the need for more granular data. Several witnesses recommended continued public‑records requests and cited Syracuse University’s Track Reports and other record‑collection projects as useful but lagging resources. Lawmakers asked witnesses to submit more detailed spreadsheets on hotspot geographies and hotline call breakdowns to inform potential drafting.

The hearing concluded with chairs asking witnesses to submit written testimony and data. Committee leaders said the testimony would guide next steps, including potential bill language, oversight requests and budget priorities related to detention oversight, legal representation funding and limits on agreements that place state facilities at the front door of federal immigration enforcement.