Letter: Legislative action needed to protect immigrants

Becca Kornet, “Letter: Legislative action needed to protect immigrants,” Hometown Weekly, February 27, 2026.

To the Editor:

Every day, we see horrific violence by ICE agents across the country, including here in Massachusetts. This has hit pretty close to home, with Milford and Framingham being among the communities hardest hit by ICE in 2025. ICE’s actions are making all our communities less safe. Massachusetts residents have turned out in big numbers to protests and standouts demanding that our elected leaders do more leading and stand up to the cruelty and lawlessness of the Trump administration. There was a recent surge of ICE activity in Maine, and Massachusetts could be targeted next. We need to be ready for that now.

Many of our beloved immigrant neighbors are rightfully scared to leave their homes for fear of being detained by ICE. Parents are staying home from work and children are staying home from school. Others who are not immigrants but have black or brown skin, or an accent, or just find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time can all too easily find themselves in the middle of an ICE detention raid. Once someone is detained by ICE, the harrowing process has been known to move extremely quickly, with individuals transferred to Burlington, then to Plymouth, then to someplace like Louisiana – often over the course of a single day, before their families even know what happened, and before they have had a chance to secure legal representation. It is a dehumanizing experience.

While Massachusetts can’t stop everything ICE is doing, we must stop being complicit. Although many of us are proud of Massachusetts’s reputation as a liberal bastion, when it comes to protecting our immigrant communities, we have often lagged behind other states. States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington have all passed critical legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. Governor Healey and Beacon Hill legislators are finally coming around to the idea that the public wants to see action. But it matters that we pass legislation that truly meets the moment.

Beacon Hill should make it clear: state and local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents. Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests (taking people into custody when no crime has been committed) or ask members of the public about their immigration status. ICE is pressuring local police departments to sign up for its 287(g) program, which turns street-level officers into ICE agents – Massachusetts should prevent this misuse of public safety resourcesfrom happening within our borders. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE. Governor Healey can end this collaboration with a stroke of the pen.

I urge you to look up your local legislators and find out if they have supported similar legislation.  You can find out if they are supporting the Safe Communities Act here. Other relevant legislation includes the Dignity Not Deportations Bill and the Black and Latino Caucus’s PROTECT Act. Call on them to build support with their colleagues behind robust legislation.

Becca Kornet
Medfield

Did Your State Rep Vote to Save Mass Save?

As we wrote yesterday, MA House Democrats were preparing to gut the state’s energy efficiency program Mass Save, scapegoating it for rising utility bills while doing nothing to prevent the gas infrastructure expansion that is really behind the increase.

Energy efficiency investments are the quintessential win-win: they save residents money, they create jobs in weatherization, and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But when state representatives had the opportunity to restore the $1 billion in cuts to Mass Save yesterday, only 17 of them voted yes (see the recorded vote below). That’s right: only 17.

If you’re happy with how your state rep voted, you should thank them​. If you aren’t happy with how your state rep voted, make sure they know about it​.

State representatives are defending their cuts to Mass Save by saying they are just cutting a marketing budget. But let’s be clear: these cuts go far deeper than that, and marketing is how Mass Save ensures that its programs can actually reach equity goals and deliver real savings to working-class, POC, and immigrant communities across the commonwealth.

The House voted 128 to 27 to pass the underlying energy bill (H.5151). Every Republican voted no, and progressive Democrats Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) and Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voted no in protest of the bill’s deep cuts to the Mass Save energy efficiency program.

There are good things in the bill to expand solar, wind, and geothermal and to rein in predatory third-party electricity suppliers. And it’s a win that the House is no longer trying to eliminate the state’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets.

But here’s the problem: if we gut energy efficiency programs, we are setting ourselves up to miss these targets by even more, and we are already far behind. Targets need to be matched with action. Make sure your state senator​ knows you want bolder action than what the House passed. 

More Solar, But Little Sunshine

The process around the bill was illustrative of Beacon Hill’s top-down, closed modus operandi.

The bill was only released to representatives and the public on Tuesday. Members of the Ways and Means Committee didn’t even have a full hour to read a 100+ page bill before casting a vote. Representatives had to then scramble to file amendments, which were due the next day, followed by a vote yesterday (Thursday).

How many people actually read the bill? Your guess is as good as mine.

In the lead-up to the vote, representatives filed a total of 126 amendments, but very few received any actual public discussion.

3 amendments were withdrawn, and 3 were rejected via a voice vote. (For one of those voice votes, the amendment’s filer asked for a roll call vote, but not enough people stood to allow it.)

11 amendments received recorded votes requested by Republicans, and 1 amendment (the Mass Save amendment shown above, filed by Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven) received a recorded vote requested by a Democrat.

The remaining 108 amendments were fed into the sausage-making machine known as the “Consolidated Amendment” process. In this process, House Leadership gathers together amendments, sets them all aside, and then picks from their carcasses what, if anything, they want to include in the bill. By virtue of this process, 108 amendments were grouped into 3, with little of their original text still standing.

The 11 aforementioned Republican amendments were rightfully rejected, on party line or almost party line votes.

  • Amendment #7, which would make the state’s 2030 emissions targets non-binding, as the House’s original energy bill tried to do 
  • Amendment #8, which would require the state to expand gas pipeline infrastructure 
  • Amendment #13, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #21, which would create bureaucratic hurdles for renewable energy generation (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #24, which seems to be an attempt to allow bootlegged propane  (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #38, which would strike the increased solar and wind procurement targets 
  • Amendment #46, which would decrease the yearly Renewable Portfolio Standard (i.e., % of renewables that utilities must supply) increase from 3% to 1% indefinitely (The House’s original energy bill wanted to do this through 2022; the new bill made no changes) 
  • Amendment #78, which would ban stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards for five years (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #101, which would outsource our clean energy and climate policies to corporate lobby groups 
  • Amendment #105, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance 
  • Amendment #109, which would eliminate minimum renewable energy standards for electric suppliers

Letter: State Legislation Needed to Stop Local Police From Assisting ICE

Rita Colafella, “Letter: State Legislation Needed to Stop Local Police From Assisting ICE,” Watertown News, February 23, 2026.

Across the US, we are witnessing ICE violence perpetrated with apparent impunity. On TV and social media, we see lawlessness and general chaos. A functional society needs the rule of law — built on stable precedents, clear processes, and established procedures to ensure the safety of every resident. Currently, that safety is being undermined by a federal administration that shifts rules on a weekly basis, while operating without a transparent strategy or the tactical oversight necessary to protect civil liberties.

Americans from across the political spectrum have turned out in droves to demand accountability. Recent polling reflects this growing national consensus: 60% of Americans disapprove of ICE’s conduct, including 68% of independents. Even among those who generally support the agency’s mission, there is unease because 65% of ALL those polled believe ICE has “gone too far.” It is no different in Massachusetts. Maine is experiencing a sudden and sharp increase in ICE activity. If Massachusetts is next, then we need a decisive local response. We along with 100 of millions of other Americans urge our elected leaders to act. It is time to implement safeguards that prevent federal overreach from compromising the safety, dignity, and legal stability of our communities. 

I grew up in the shadow of the Soviet Union and 40 years after World War II, and this issue transcends modern politics — it is about the fundamental preservation of human dignity and the sanctity of the law. When one is raised with the historical memory of how quickly state power can turn arbitrary and unchecked, one understands that “rules” are only meaningful when they are consistent and transparent. We learned that America’s promise is rooted in the idea that one’s safety is guaranteed by the rule of law rather than the whims of a shifting administration. When enforcement agencies operate without accountability, it echoes the very instability and overreach that many sought to escape. Protecting this idea matters because both heritage and history have demonstrated countless times that once the precedent for lawlessness is set, no community is truly secure.

While the Commonwealth cannot directly overturn federal ICE policy or obstruct its operations, we are under no obligation to be complicit in its actions. Massachusetts is failing to uphold its historic “rebellious reputation” — the same spirit that ignited the American Revolution and stoked the flames when other states wavered. Today, we are falling short of protecting our residents. Other states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, have already passed decisive legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. The national tide is turning, and it is time for the Governor and Beacon Hill to recognize this shift. Our leaders must do their jobs by passing legislation with real “teeth” — laws that reflect the will of the people and effectively address the wrongdoing occurring within our borders.

Our legislation must be crystal clear: state and all local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents. Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests — taking people into custody when they have not committed a crime. Nor should they ask any members of the public about one’s status. Locally funded resources must remain focused on protecting our communities, not assisting ICE in civil arrests or interrogations. ICE is pressuring local departments to sign 287(g) agreements, which effectively deputize local officers to perform federal immigration duties.

Massachusetts remains the only state with a Democratic governor and a Democratic-majority legislature to maintain such a statewide agreement. The chaotic civil immigration enforcement is not just a moral failure — it is a strategic one. Diverting highly trained and handsomely paid officers to apprehend people for status violations — often without a judicial warrant — moves resources away from responding to overdoses, domestic violence and armed robberies. The data is undeniable: U.S.citizens are 2.5 times more likely to commit drug crimes, and over four times more likely to commit property crimes compared to undocumented immigrants. By many metrics, focusing on civil violations does not make us safer; it only erodes the trust necessary for effective community policing. The Governor has the power to end this collaboration with a stroke of her pen. It is time for Beacon Hill to pass legislation to protect every resident of this Commonwealth.

Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan recently came to Watertown, and described what we can do to protect people. It included informing people of their rights to properly labelling areas as Private. She then said the most effective actions are demonstrating on the streets and contacting your representatives. So I ask you to look up your local legislators and find out if they have supported ending such agreements with ICE.

Rita Colafella
Watertown Resident