Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Legislature hears broad coalition push for immigrant defense funding and limits on ICE collaboration
Loading...
Summary
Advocates, unions and local officials urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to fund statewide immigration counsel and to bar new 287(g) deputization agreements and informal collaboration with ICE, saying recent enforcement spikes have harmed schools, health care access and community trust.
Advocates from unions, legal services and faith groups told the Joint Committee on the Judiciary that Massachusetts should fund legal representation for people in immigration proceedings and refuse to enable federal immigration enforcement.
"This bill would draw a clear line between local public safety functions and federal civil immigration enforcement," said Jessica Tang on behalf of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts, arguing S.1122 would protect students and families who fear routine interactions with local authorities could lead to detention. Other witnesses described spikes in ICE arrests and said local collaboration — including 287(g) deputization agreements — has undermined trust and public safety.
Supporters urged the committee to advance three related priorities: (1) prohibit police from assisting ICE in civil arrests, (2) ban new 287(g) deputization agreements that turn local officers into ICE agents, and (3) sustainably fund legal defense so immigrants facing removal have counsel. "Detention tears families apart," said Jonathan Goldman of the Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice, recounting a case in which a detained coworker’s son called to say his mother had been taken.
Coalition witnesses included labor leaders who highlighted economic impacts, legal advocates stressing due process gaps, and religious organizers who framed the measures as a moral obligation. Julia Kupferman of the Religious Action Center urged the committee to report H.15 88 and S.11 22 favorably, saying the bills would ‘‘refuse contracts that deputize local agencies to act as ICE agents.’’
Supporters pointed to funding already included in the FY26 budget — $5 million — as a start but argued for a permanent, statewide system to avoid leaving representation subject to annual budget changes. Multiple presenters cited evidence that represented immigrants are far more likely to prevail in proceedings; witnesses said representation both preserves family stability and has economic benefits for communities.
Opposition in the hearing was limited in the record for these measures; most public testimony recorded in this hearing favored the combination of legal defense funding and limits on collaboration with ICE. Several witnesses asked the committee to couple legal assistance with bans on formal and informal cooperation with federal enforcement, to prevent local resources from fueling mass deportation campaigns.
The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. Sponsors asked that the panel report the bills favorably so the Legislature can consider statutory restrictions on collaboration with federal immigration authorities and create long‑term funding for immigrant legal defense.
