Trump deportation plan stoking Massachusetts economic concerns, reigniting debate about law enforcement cooperation
- Chris Lisinski
December 10, 2024, Boston.Concerns about severe economic repercussions and a renewed discussion about law enforcement collaboration in Massachusetts are being fueled by President-elect Donald Trump’s continued promises of mass deportations of foreign-born citizens.
Trump called for significant action to deport individuals in the United States without legal status during a large portion of his successful campaign, and he has subsequently doubled down, albeit in ambiguous language.
In a lengthy interview on Sunday’s episode of NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump stated that his administration would give preference to undocumented immigrants with criminal records, but he also hinted that he might be amenable to taking children from mixed-status families who are legally present.
“The only way to avoid severing families is to keep them together and send them all back,” Trump stated. “I don’t want to be breaking up families.”
Trump stated that the approach depends on the family when asked if his government would resume separating families as a deterrent against further migration.
He added, “When they come here illegally, they’re going out.” The family may choose to say, “I’d rather have dad go, and we’ll stay here,” in which case they have that option. The family now has a choice if they enter the country illegally yet their family members are present lawfully. They can all leave together, or the one who entered illegally can leave alone.
Additionally, the president-elect indicated that he intends to abolish birthright citizenship, which gives U.S. citizenship to anybody born in the country. Since the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment enshrines that policy, any attempt to alter it would probably need a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of the votes in both houses of Congress, approval from all 50 states, or start a protracted legal battle.
We will need to acquire a change. Perhaps we must return to the people. However, we must put an end to it, Trump stated on Meet the Press, falsely asserting that the US is the only nation with such a policy.
Many Democrats are alarmed by Trump’s months-long promises regarding deportations. The incoming administration in Washington has pulled Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and Governor Maura Healey, who has long been an outspoken opponent of Trump, into the crossfire.
In a hypothetical appearance with MSNBC television three days after the election, Healey was asked if she would comply with a request from the Trump administration for the Massachusetts State Police to help with mass deportations.
No. “Definitely not,” she said.
Since then, Healey has repeatedly maintained that the federal government should be the only entity responsible for enforcing immigration laws and that launching a large-scale deportation operation would be harsh and extremely disruptive to our economy.
The idea of mass expulsions This nation has a large number of mixed-status families. Healey stated during a panel discussion organized by the Washington Post on November 21 that “it would crater our economy if that kind of activity were to occur.” He stated that there are a lot of individuals who are gainfully employed, who pay taxes, and who are raising children here who are in schools.
At least one local economist has made a similar argument.
According to UMass Dartmouth’s executive director of economic development and community partnerships, Michael Goodman, Trump’s proposed immigration and deportation pledges could have a major effect on important industries in Massachusetts and across the country, he warned lawmakers.
Goodman stated during a hearing on the state’s economic prospects last week on Beacon Hill that “this really does cause concern when we think about a state like ours, where we’re not growing the population very quickly, and we’re heavily reliant on international migration as a source of labor force growth.” According to our experience from 2016 to 2020 [during Trump’s first term], even tough talk deters foreign-born people from sending their children to school, reporting to work, or calling the police in the event of a crime, regardless of whether they have a legal immigration status. This leaves these communities extremely vulnerable.
Deportations would target people with criminal records, according to some Republicans, who have called Trump’s win a mandate from the electorate.
It’s not only Michelle Wu, let’s face it. Massachusetts as a whole maintains an open border and follows a policy that is inconsistent with other states. In an episode of WCVB’s On the Record, Republican strategist Rob Gray stated, “We have a lot of illegal immigrants here.” Voters supported the deportation of immigrants. The Trump government, in my opinion, will prioritize the criminals.
Due in part to the rising demand for emergency shelter services, immigration has been a major topic in Massachusetts in recent years. Although Healey’s office has stated that all of the thousands of persons seeking shelter are lawfully in the United States, it has also noted that the majority of families receiving services are long-term residents of Massachusetts.
Whether to create a statutory barrier between local law enforcement and federal immigration cases is one Beacon Hill topic that may be revived by the changing circumstances.
For years, organizations that support immigrants have been urging lawmakers to pass legislation that would, among other things, forbid agreements with the federal government to deputize local law enforcement as immigration agents and restrict Massachusetts courts and police from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status.
Those 287(g) agreements, which grant state and local law enforcement officials the power to carry out immigration officer duties under the supervision of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, were already in effect for a number of county sheriff departments.
Federal authorities terminated a 287(g) contract with the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office in May 2021, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office terminated its own 287(g) contract in September 2021, and the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office filed a motion last year to stop the same agreement with ICE, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. According to Elizabeth Sweet, head of the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition, the state Department of Correction is now the sole Massachusetts department with a 287(g) agreement.
In Massachusetts, county sheriffs are in charge of jails and homes of correction. Sweet and other activists want state law to stop more of those agreements from being made.
The state’s role is far smaller than the federal government’s because immigration policies and deportations are primarily the responsibility of the federal government. However, our criminal justice system is closely linked to the way deportations and detentions currently operate. Naturally, a large portion of that is managed at the state level, Sweet stated in an interview.
Boston already has a similar barrier. The Trust Act, which was passed in 2014 and revised in 2019, restricts Boston police assistance to criminal cases and prohibits them from assisting federal authorities in enforcing civil immigration offenses.
After drawing attention to the city’s existing protections, Wu became embroiled in a public dispute with the Trump administration last month. Tom Homan, the new border czar, responded by calling Wu stupid.
According to reports, Homan stated in an appearance on the conservative TV network Newsmax, “Either she helps us, or she gets the hell out of the way because we’re going to do it.”
For years, prominent Beacon Hill Democrats have chosen not to support statewide legislation restricting collaboration with immigration enforcement, despite the city-level policy and requests from some members of the Legislature.
In 2018, the Senate voted 25–13 to include language pertaining to immigration enforcement in its state budget plan; however, the House did not support this effort. Sen. Michael Rodrigues, who is now the head of the Senate’s budget, voted against the motion, while Senate President Karen Spilka, who had not yet assumed the chamber’s highest position, supported it.
Subsequent iterations of the bill have passed committees since then, but neither chamber has ever put them to a vote.
We sincerely hope that our legislators will take the Safe Communities Act and any other steps they may take to safeguard our immigrant communities from enforcement extremely seriously at this time, Sweet stated.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
