Endorsing Orgs: Plug in to Make a Difference

Salem YES on 1

Dear Safe Communities Act Endorsing Organizations,

As we articulated last month, the Safe Communities Coalition has concluded that a positive, Yes on 1 outcome in Salem is critically important. A reversal of Salem’s “welcoming” policy would reverberate across the state, critically harming our efforts to pass the Safe Communities Act, as well as undermine support for trust/welcoming/sanctuary policies in other Commonwealth municipalities.

Salem is putting our values to a vote, and if we can’t show that there is strong public support for these policies, we will face an even greater challenge in the State House.

So many of the endorsing organizations have stepped up and contributed volunteer time and effort on canvasses and phone banks already. It has been a beautiful example of what we can do when organizations come together in coalition to work on a larger goal.

In the last weeks before the Nov. 7 election, we’re asking you once again to appeal to your members and networks.

TAKE ACTION THIS WEEKEND:

Join the Salem 10/29 Statewide Virtual Phonebank — all you need is a phone, laptop and internet connection. Sign up at the link!

Call to Endorsing Orgs: Focus Salem

Dear Safe Communities Act Endorsing Organizations,

In all the news on a national and state level concerning immigration, the Safe Communities Act Action Committee wants to bring to your attention a local fight for immigrant rights with major implication: the Salem is for Everyone campaign.

Salem is in a heated fight to protect their Sanctuary for Peace Ordinance which was passed in March 2017 and codifies existing Salem City and Police Department policies that protect the rights of all Salem residents, regardless of immigration status.

Anti-immigrant forces want to repeal, and have successfully put the Ordinance on the November 7th ballot and are marshalling their forces to convince voters to repeal it.

The Safe Communities Act Action Committee believes that a positive, Yes on 1 outcome in support of the Ordinance is critically important not just for Salem, but for the passage of the Safe Communities Act, as well as trust/welcoming/sanctuary policies across the state. If we can’t show that there is strong public support for these policies, we will face an even greater challenge in the State House.

Please alert your networks and invite your members to join our coalition effort in Salem!

Safe Communities Coalition Canvassing for Salem

As a coalition, we are organizing 2 canvassing days with Yes on 1 Salem: Saturday, October 7, and Saturday, October 21 from 1pm-5pm.

October 7 Safe Communities Canvass for Salem

1pm-5pm

First Church, 316 Essex St. in Salem

We will be joining Yes on 1 to canvass North Salem on this date. Join forces with Salem locals to knock on doors! All routes will be walkable or you will be paired with someone with a car.

Parking: Leave extra time. Parking is challenging in Salem in October. You can try for street parking on parking is available a few blocks away at the MBTA garage. Taking the Train: First Church is just a few blocks away from the MBTA station.

The Campaign has invited all volunteers to meet at Mercy Tavern, 148 Derby St. for drinks/bites to eat after and enjoy October in Salem!

RSVP to the Action Committee for September 7th.

October 21 Safe Communities Canvass for Salem

1pm-5pm

First Church, 316 Essex St. in Salem

We will be joining Yes on 1 to canvass South Salem on this date. Join forces with Salem locals to knock on doors! All routes will be walkable or you will be paired with someone with a car.

Parking: Leave extra time. Parking is challenging in Salem in October. You can try for street parking on parking is available a few blocks away at the MBTA garage. Taking the Train: First Church is just a few blocks away from the MBTA station.

The Campaign has invited all volunteers to meet at Mercy Tavern, 148 Derby St. for drinks/bites to eat after and enjoy October in Salem!

RSVP to the Action Committee for September 21.

Carpooling: Sign up to request a ride or to offer rides for both dates!

Can’t make these dates? Sign up for canvassing on other days here.

Follow Yes on 1! Salem is for Everyone to stay up to date on their entire campaign and ways that you can support their work.

Other action opportunities from Yes on 1:

Spanish Day of Action:

October 14 10:00 am and 1:00 pm – North Shore CDC, 96 Lafayette St. (upstairs) Salem

Yes on 1 will be canvassing The Point neighborhood (Salem’s primarily Latino neighborhood) in two shifts, 10:00 am and 1:00 pm. Opponents went into this neighborhood to get residents to sign their referendum petition, misleading people that it was “for Sanctuary.” We need to combat that. If you speak Spanish, that is great! Feel free to come even if you don’t.

Parking: Street parking should be available in the surrounding blocks. The routes will be walkable.

Phone Banking: If you are looking for remote support, the Yes on 1 Salem campaign is working to set up remote phone banking! Contact salemsanctuarynow@gmail.com to work out how you can set up a phone bank for your group.

This is an opportunity we cannot pass on. Thank you for your continuing support for the Safe Communities Act.

SCA Action Committee:

Progressive MA

Indivisible

JALSA

MIRA

ACLU

32BJ

Salem: For Want of a Nail

THE best hopes of pushing back against the Trump agenda is to pass solid, good policy at the State Level. 

On the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigration policies, our hopes are in the courts — where we are winning– and in the states, with good ‘Safe’ and ‘Trust’ communities legislation as has been so recently passed by Illinois (!!) and California. 

Massachusetts, Illinois is surpassing us in #Resisting autocracy and state oppression.

Our State Legislature must take up the mantel of justice and adopt an urgency that is so far shockingly absent.* 

To catch up with Illinois, Massachusetts must pass the Safe Communities Act, which is, dumbfoundingly, languishing in committee and without enough champions among our Legislators. With your grassroots outreach and our Safe Communities Coalition’s advocacy inside the building, we are making progress — but time is running out... 

…And we are looking at a loose horseshoe nail in Salem.

The Safe Communities Coalition has concluded that losing the Salem welcoming city ordinance would send already nervous legislators running away from the goals of justice for all. All Beacon Hill eyes are watching Salem. A no vote there, on a municipal initiative, could close down the SCA for at least next two years. We must do everything to make sure SCA passes NOW. 

A driving philosophy at Progressive Mass is that taking action, organizing, in our communities is the sine qua non of progress and justice.

So simple, so powerful: Act Locally. 

Gather up your neighbors and friends, and join us to knock on doors and get on phones to help Salem voters make a vote for justice, with a YES ON 1 vote. Schedule a phone bank in your community and invite your friends. Your work will go farther than any other activity this season.**

Right now, we focus on securing a horseshoe nail. 

Teen Workers Need the Full Minimum Wage

By Margaret Heitz, Progressive Lexington

I grabbed a great seat for Tuesday’s State House hearing on the minimum wage. I wanted a seat with a good view of the folks testifying. Rachael Collins and her colleagues from the Restaurant Opportunities Center United slid into seats next to me. By noon, Gardner Auditorium was filled to capacity . 

The SEIU 1199 organizer sitting to my left shared good information with me. His personal story itself was a testimony to the value of a strong bedrock minimum wage. His parents were teens when he was born, which judging by his salt and pepper hair might have been in the late seventies. In his childhood, they supported themselves through minimum wage work.

He also told me about a conversation he had with a hardware store owner. The owner said that at a $15/hr minimum wage, he would hire only adults, no teens. Presumably, in his view, teens are not mature enough take the responsibility of work. If that’s the sentiment of most employers, it could be bad news for teens. On the other hand, employers should take to heart their responsibility to hold a teen employee accountable as they would an older one.

I remember a good friend telling me that her teenage son, who wouldn’t pick up a wet towel in the bathroom let alone keep his room neat or remember to take out the trash, was a completely different person at his job at a CVS store. He was consistently on time and on task at the store. She gave the store manager and the paycheck credit for the new man she saw in her son.

Teens, especially in lower income levels, have financial obligations to themselves and their families that they might not have had years ago. They need and deserve the full minimum wage to start off their work career.

Regrettably, I had to leave the hearing early. The panels of speakers in support of the badly needed wage increase were extraordinary. It’s clear to me and to just about all the people in the auditorium that the time to raise the wage to $15/hr for workers has come—regardless of their age.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same….Unless

Taking Beacon Hill by surprise, House Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey (D-Haverhill) announced his resignation from the House of Representatives last Wednesday, to take a position at the corporate lobbying firm ML Strategies in September.

Dempsey, a conservative Democrat who has overseen the drafting of several austerity budgets, was widely viewed as next in line for Speaker of the House. He also played a leading role last session in weakening the solar incentive bill and the omnibus energy bill, and sided with the big business group AIM on the Equal Pay bill, Noncompetes, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

One of ML Strategies’ clients is Wynn Casinos–perhaps a reason for a last minute addition to the FY18 budget allowing casinos to serve drinks until 4 a.m. Needless to say, Progressives in Massachusetts will not be missing him.

A New Way on Ways & Means?

Ways & Means is by far the most powerful committee. Any legislation that involves public money must go through both the W&M in both the House and Senate. In that space, W&M can—and sometimes does—change legislation, with zero transparency or democracy. Any policies that require funding can be rendered ineffective by W&M’s level of funding for it, too.

These Ways and Means Committees are not required under the Legislature’s rules to report out any bill that is referred there. Therefore the Committees are frequently graveyards.

And, yeah, Ways and Means Committees write the budget. As they say, whoever holds the purse strings holds the power.

Over the weekend, Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Mission Hill) was named the next chair of the committee. Sanchez represents one of the most progressive districts in the state. What does this mean for the committee? 

In our scorecards for the last two legislative sessions (188th, 189th), Sanchez fared modestly better than Dempsey and Speaker DeLeo. Each case, the difference was a result of Sanchez standing up for the rights of undocumented residents. And unlike Dempsey, Sanchez is a co-sponsor of the Safe Communities Act.

However, beyond those votes, Sanchez has a history of voting in lockstep with the Speaker, right or wrong. And his name is missing on the list of co-sponsors of key bills this session–from the $15 minimum wage to paid family and medical leave to single payer health care to ending mandatory minimum sentences. And under his chairmanship of the Health Care Financing Committee, the House has not taken the necessary steps to improve the quality and reduce the cost of care. Last session, Sanchez as the House chair sent single-payer legislation to study.

How will Sanchez be as the new chairman of this most powerful committee? Will there be a new spirit of transparency, collaboration in this new tenure? We’ll find out.

With his ascension to this powerful position, the role of progressive organizers within his district–like the great activists at JP Progressives–becomes even more important to the state as a whole.

Stepping Stones and Musical Chairs

As noted above, the Ways & Means Chairmanship is often seen as a stepping stone to the Speaker’s office. Although the House has abolished term limits for the Speaker, DeLeo may ultimately choose to retire. And it’s important to make sure that the next Speaker has a progressive vision for the state.

A strong coalition can be built, as noted by Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan):

Now is the time for the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Women’s Caucus to be strong and united in our selection of the next speaker of the House. We should not do this individually; we should do this together so our voices are heard.

We couldn’t agree more. If the Progressive Caucus is to exist in more than name, then it should take on a more assertive role in shaping the direction of the State House.

Apparently, Speaker DeLeo doesn’t agree. In the committee shakeup that followed Sanchez’s promotion, DeLeo stripped Holmes of his vice chairmanship of the Joint Committee of Housing. Two years ago, DeLeo stripped Rep. Jonathan Hecht (D-Watertown) of a vice chairmanship after Hecht spoke out against abolishing term limits.

The centralization of power in the Speaker’s office has been a hurdle to the progressive legislation that would make Massachusetts live up to its liberal reputation.

If DeLeo stays at the helm for another four to five years, progressive legislators need a plan to push the Speaker for a bolder legislative agenda to invest in our schools and infrastructure, reduce inequality, reform our broken criminal justice system, model a transition to clean energy, protect and expand the rights of marginalized populations, and on and on. And if they don’t have a plan, then activists need to make them.

Four to five years is a long time. For persons suffering under injustice and insecurity, two is a long time, too.

But progressives, both inside and outside the State House, need to think long-term as well. The caucuses described by Rep. Holmes could place their support for the Next Speaker behind one person, and dramatically alter the future of progressive legislation. While the very rapid ascension of Sanchez to W/M chair puts him on an important stepping stone towards speakership, it is not by any means a fait accompli, and certainly the rank and file have the option of exercising their power for larger progressive goals.

This would take discipline, focus, and an ability to put the Common Good ahead of individual legislators’ narrow self interests—which too often are reduced to fears of conservatives’ wrath, and almost never liberals’ disappointments. It would be a glorious thing to see; there are moments of stepping up and changing the narrative—this is one of those for House Progressives (and every caucus whose aims have been stepped over for austerity budgets and corporate comforts).

At the very least, or, less inspiringly, come up with a key set of issue priorities, expectations, and rules reforms that the leading contenders for the next Speaker of the House would commit to.

Given that the House has already sought to water down or stop even very modest progressive policies in recent years, the stakes could not be higher.

Do MA Dems Stand for Women’s Rights in the Workplace Or Not?

The 190th legislative session has been off to a slow start on Beacon Hill. Beyond the pay raise, and the budget process, the Legislature has not been doing much in the way of, well, legislating.

One small bit of progress was the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed the House unanimously last month. The bill requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” for pregnant women and nursing mothers (such as more frequent breaks, less strenuous duties, and the ability to sit down on the job) provided that they don’t cause “significant difficulty or expense.”This new bill is not as strong as the one introduced last session—which Speaker DeLeo and others in the Democratic leadership, doing the bidding of powerful business interests, blocked. Like much progressive legislation, the bill died in committee. The 2017 bill resulted from negotiations between women’s advocacy group MotherWoman and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). And although it was watered down to get AIM on board, the bill was nonetheless a positive development for women across the Commonwealth.

But because of the House’s standard lack of transparency, it was almost watered down even further.

As the Globe reported on Thursday, the powerful Ways & Means Committee quietly changed one word in the bill in committee before it went to a vote:

But it emerged from the House Committee on Ways and Means for a full vote on the floor with the word “knowingly” added at the beginning of that sentence. The language passed in the House without anyone noticing the change, and now the bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

It’s an addition that advocates for these pregnant worker protections say creates a serious new layer of what a worker would have to prove if she felt there was discrimination in her denial of a job. To prove an employer acted “knowingly” requires direct evidence that the employer knew the applicant was pregnant and denied them a job because of it — a much higher standard of proof.

Neither sponsors of the bill nor key advocates, who helped negotiate the legislation, were notified. AIM claimed to have not been behind the change–though it was clearly done in their interest.

Mass Dems Platform Gets Bolder – Can We Turn it into Policy?

If a platform is adopted and no legislators are there to enact, it, did it make a sound? Yesterday, the Massachusetts Democratic Party adopted a new platform. Back in March and April, Progressive Mass worked with Our Revolution Massachusetts and the Progressive Democrats of America – MA on a list of recommendations to make the platform more progressive.

The good news is that a number of them got in.

Here’s a run-down of new platform additions that were called for in the joint document:

Education

  • Free education is a human right, and therefore public education from high-quality universal preschool and full-day kindergarten through higher education and vocational training should be free to all residents
  • Fixing the public education funding formula to fully fund high-quality public education for all students
  • Ending the state’s punitive use of high-stakes testing

Immigration

  • Becoming a sanctuary state, where all immigrants and refugees feel welcome and safe in all communities of the Commonwealth
  • Eliminating policies that make local and state officials responsible for the enforcement of national immigration laws

Labor and Workforce

  • A decent living wage for all workers and a $15 minimum wage that is increased and indexed to inflation
  • Strong laws to combat wage theft and misclassification of workers
  • Paid family and medical leave insurance that allows all employees to take job-protected paid leave to recover from a serious illness or injury, to care for a seriously ill or injured family member, or to care for a new child, and prohibits employer retaliation against workers who take time off under these conditions
  • Fighting for anti-discrimination laws to make sure that employers don’t take advantage of workers, employees receive fair compensation for their hard work, corporations obey the law, and employees are able to be their most productive in a safe work environment free from harassment.

Public Safety and Crime Prevention

  • Comprehensive criminal justice reform that includes the removal of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent crimes, giving the judge discretion with the sentencing in these cases
  • Ending the militarization of police

Voting and Democracy

  • Offering automatic voter registration
  • Ensuring early voting in all elections

And yesterday, two additional recommend planks got in as part of one of ORMA’s floor amendments: mandatory de-escalation training for police an end to for-profit prisons.

It’s a testament to the hard work and commitment of activists who showed up at platform hearings, submitted testimony online, and went to the convention that these got in. Give yourself a pat on the back!

But the important part comes next: holding elected officials accountable to the stated ideals of the party.

Democrats hold ~80% of the seats in both houses. However, as I wrote recently for CommonWealth, this hasn’t always translated into progressive policymaking.

To my opening question, the answer depends on the activists (ALL OF US), who need to make sure that Beacon Hill hears loud and clear that the time is now (indeed, yesterday) to put such professed values and ideals into concrete policy.

Resisting Trump’s Extreme Immigration Policies with the Safe Communities Act

By Heather Busk, Progressive Watertown

“When Mexico sends its people, it’s not sending its best…They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

That is a direct quote from our current President. In his dark view of the world, the United States is under assault by a horde of dangerous immigrants unleashing a wave of violence against hapless citizens. There’s only one tiny problem with this view-it’s completely false.

It should come as no surprise to see once again that Trump and his henchmen live in an alternate reality.

Contrary to Trump’s hysterical fever dreams, immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) do not commit violent crimes any more than other groups. This deserves reiteration, because our beliefs have been warped by decades of television and movies pushing this false narrative. If immigrants are so much more dangerous, why did violent crime decline by 34% from 1994 to 2005, while the foreign born population increased by 71%? The national crime rate has dropped sharply over the last few decades, including in areas where the number of undocumented immigrants grew significantly. Areas with a larger immigrant population (including undocumented) have lower crime rates, after controlling for other factors. They have incarceration rates below native born Americans. So whatever our immigration policy is, it should reflect the fact that the undocumented are not responsible for this nonexistent crime wave.

This rhetoric about criminals serves as a distraction from the large number of people without criminal records who have also been deported. Maribel Trujillo, a mother of four US citizen children, a business owner who has lived in the US for 15 years, was deported in April. In Lawrence, five were arrested when they appeared for scheduled meetings with USCIS, some of which were to begin the green card process. None of the people in these examples had a criminal record, and this is not unusual. The number of deportees without criminal records has more than doubled during Trump’s time in office, to more than 10,800 so far. By the end of Obama’s term, the official deportation policy was “Felons, not families” yet even under this policy, many of those deported had no criminal record. Far from being a champion of the undocumented, Obama oversaw the deportation of 2.4 million people, more than any previous president. Trump wants to go even further, and his administration’s policies expand the deportation priority from criminals to potentially anyone.

In this cold discussion of “immigration enforcement,” we must never forget the human face of it–families broken apart. To keep families whole, and to make sure that the job of the police is to keep us safe, not deport our neighbors, Massachusetts should become a sanctuary state. 

The Safe Communities Act would:

  • Prevent state and local government from using their resources to aid in the enforcement of immigration law. It does allow the use of houses of corrections to hold people in ICE custody, provided the use is reimbursed. This will allow potential deportees to remain closer to home, closer to their families and legal aid. Detainees who are sent to remote locations are on average held months longer before deportation or release.
  • Prohibits law enforcement from asking about someone’s immigration status, except as required by law or as necessary to investigate a crime.
  • Prohibits law enforcement agencies or the RMV from contributing information to federal attempts to register people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin. In other words, we won’t help make the infamous Muslim registry.
  • Prohibits law enforcement from detaining or arresting anyone solely for immigration purposes, and prohibits any state or local personnel from acting as immigration agents.
  • Prohibits the honoring of detainer requests and requires that the determination of bail ignore the detainer. Detainers are requests for local law enforcement to hold people who have been arrested an extra 48 hours, if they are suspected to be undocumented, giving ICE a chance to come pick them up. To be clear, under the proposed law, an arrested person would not be released early because of immigration status, it would simply stop them from being held past their lawful release time because of a detainer request. This is consistent with how criminal justice works for citizens. Many arrests are made for minor crimes that do not carry a long jail time as punishment, and many charges are dismissed. Furthermore, not everyone arrested is guilty-don’t forget, “innocent until proven guilty.” For those charged with more serious crimes, law enforcement and the courts will, as always, consider the severity of the alleged crime, flight risk, and other factors before deciding whether to release them and how much to charge for bail. So people who likely pose a danger to the public will not be released, just like now. 
  • Requires that the person in local custody must give consent for a DHS agent to interview them. Requires that they be informed of their rights if an interview is requested. (It’s hard to exercise your rights if you don’t know what they are). If they ask for an attorney, no interview may take place without the attorney’s presence.

Proponents of strict immigration enforcement often argue that breaking immigration law is breaking the law, and lawbreakers should be prosecuted. But step back a second. Do we hold people in prison for months for jaywalking? No. That’s breaking the law too, so why not? Because we follow the principle of “the punishment should fit the crime.” Along those lines, the punishment for jaywalking is typically a small fine. To address lawbreaking, we have a range of possible responses, including prison, probation, rehabilitation programs, or fines. For those who break immigration law, the choices don’t have to be either deport or do nothing, and as a society we need to have a conversation about what the appropriate policy is.

Being undocumented simply means you are in the country without permission. (Far from the dramatic border crossing we may envision from movies, most undocumented entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. The largest group of those who overstay are Canadians). For those who have been here for a long while, deportation means the disruption of an entire life–losing a job, losing a home, and being separated from family. To me, that seems like far too harsh of a punishment for failing to file paperwork.

The undocumented may not be citizens, but that does not mean they should have no civil rights protections–human rights do not depend on where you were born or where you live. They aren’t given as many protections in immigration proceedings, but the courts have repeatedly affirmed that they at least have a right to due process.

To avoid levying a punishment much more severe than the crime warrants, the individual circumstances of each potential deportee should be considered. If they have strong ties to the US such as a spouse or children who are US citizens or permanent residents, deportation should not be done lightly. In the case of individuals who have committed crimes, that means looking at the severity of their crime to decide whether it warrants deportation and whether their expulsion would have a large disruptive effect on the local community. (Is it really better for society if children lose their parents for a minor non-violent crime?) Now compare this nuanced approach, which addresses our border security and public safety needs without neglecting civil rights, to what Trump wants to do.

During his campaign, Trump swore to deport all 11 or so million undocumented immigrants. Later on, he relented and promised to deport “only” the two or three million that he believes are criminals (although it’s disputed if there are that many with a criminal record, and many of those have a record for a minor crime), but his actions as President have hewed closer to his original position.

He may be a pathological liar, but so far he really does seem to be trying to keep many of his campaign promises. To this end, he has signed a few executive orders on immigration.  Among other things, he calls for the building of the notorious wall along the border, the building and staffing of detention centers, the hiring of 5000 more border patrol agents, and he instructs the attorney general to have federal prosecutors prioritize offenses somehow connected to the border (diverting resources away from other pressing concerns). More directly relevant to Massachusetts, he gets local jurisdictions tangled up in enforcing federal immigration laws by calling for the cooperation of state and local governments in enforcing those laws, deputizing local and state law enforcement to act as immigration agents, expanding who is considered a priority for deportation, and ordering that federal funding be cut off to sanctuary jurisdictions.

We don’t have to guess how this will turn out–these policies have been tried before. Essentially, he is reinstating and reinvigorating two programs that have a troubled history of civil rights abuses, namely Secure Communities and 287(g) agreements.

Secure Communities was established under Bush in 2008 and was repealed by Obama in 2014 after strong criticism of the program. Under it, when someone was arrested, their fingerprints were sent to ICE to do an immigration check. If the fingerprints matched someone ICE believed to be deportable, they would issue a detainer request, asking that law enforcement hold the person for up to 48 hours past their scheduled release so that ICE could have time to pick them up. It sounds innocuous, unless you delve into the results as revealed by a study of the program from 2008 to 2011. 

First of all, families were broken apart. Through 2011, 83,000 families with US citizens were affected by the program, and 39% of those deported had citizens in their family.

The fraction of people deported with no criminal record or with arrests for a minor crime grew significantly when Secure Communities was in force: 45% had committed serious crimes, but 29% were accused of minor offenses, especially traffic violations, and 26% had no convictions. This means that more than half had a history of only minor offenses or no crime at all. In Massachusetts it was worse–in 2013, 55% had no criminal record whatsoever. ICE triumphantly pointed to the growing fraction of “criminal aliens” it deported under Secure Communities, but most of that increase was due to an increasing proportion of people deported for breaking immigration or traffic related laws.

This suggests that when ICE had to expend its own resources to track down undocumented immigrants, actual threats to society were prioritized. But when local law enforcement had done the work for them, they jumped at the opportunity to deport anyone, even if that person was not dangerous. Safe Communities, in contrast, will help keep the focus on dangerous criminals. 

Under Trump’s executive order, once again peaceful, productive members of society are being indiscriminately deported. We must protect our neighbors. By refusing to cooperate at the local level, we will reduce the number of people deported, and lower the number of families broken apart. 

Secure Communities has a poor record on respecting due process. Potential deportees, in principle, are typically supposed to get a hearing where a judge will determine their fate. They are also allowed a lawyer, although the government will not pay for it. We have a perverse system where because breaking immigration law is considered a civil rather than a criminal offense, there is no right to a lawyer, even though they are treated very much like criminals.

Under Secure Communities, only about half even got a hearing and of those only a quarter had a lawyer (compared to 41% in other immigration court proceedings). For many, this is essentially conviction for a crime without the oversight of a judge and without legal representation.

Without a lawyer, they are far more likely to be deported. Without legal counsel, some may not realize that they have a way to stay in the country, for instance through claiming asylum or if they have family who are US citizens or permanent residents. Instead, they may be pressured to voluntarily remove themselves and bypass the hearing process. It’s easy to be intimidated when you’re locked up, possibly hundreds of miles from your family, and without anyone there to give you advice except your jailers. Safe Communities will ensure that fewer people are chewed up by this extrajudicial system.

Even more egregiously, the detainers are issued for people who are suspected of being deportable, and ICE routinely gets it wrong. According to one estimate, in 2011, 1-2% of Secure Communities detainers were against US citizens. Over a few years, this amounted to approximately 3,600 citizens illegally held. Permanent residents and visa holders also have protections against arbitrary detention and deportation. Holding citizens and other legal residents like this amounts to punishment without conviction for a crime.

What’s more, local jurisdictions have been held financially liable for improperly holding people under Secure Communities, for settlements of tens of thousands of dollars. The federal government has not reimbursed them for this cost. An Oregon judge ruled that a detainer does not give local jurisdictions probable cause to hold someone. It does not have the same legal force as a warrant, which has to be reviewed by a judge. Safe Communities would protect municipalities from being sued for obeying Trump’s order.

Under 287(g), local jurisdictions enter into agreements to take on some immigration enforcement duties. In the jail-based version, it expands Secure Communities by allowing local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of those they arrest rather than waiting for a request from DHS. In Massachusetts, the Bristol and Plymouth County Sheriff’s Offices and the Department of Corrections have entered into such agreements. Trump wants to return to a task-force model, where law enforcement could act as immigration agents out in the community as well. This model was previously discontinued because it was an inefficient use of resources and encouraged racial profiling, with Latinos over-represented among those arrested.

In addition, one key principle of good policing is that the police and the communities they serve should trust each other. The police should be seen as the ones who keep us safe, not our adversaries. If they take on the duties of immigration officers, this trust will be undermined, as the undocumented will be be afraid to go to the police for fear of being deported. Information they have about crimes will go unshared. Victims will decline to report the crimes against them, and criminals will continue to walk free. This obsession with immigrants distracts from addressing the actual causes of crime and will make us less safe, not more. Indeed, there is some evidence that sanctuary jurisdictions are safer than comparable non-sanctuary jurisdictions. 

Federal immigration law is the law of that land, but there is no reason that local police should be required to help. There are many federal laws that local and state police do not work to enforce, instead leaving it to federal law enforcement. Why should immigration law be any different? The Department of Homeland Security, with a budget far greater than anything at the local level, can do its own work instead of robbing badly needed resources from local authorities. Communities that have entered into 287(g) agreements have faced financial hardship because of the added immigration duties, and the added cost has come without improved public safety.

Under Safe Communities, law enforcement will continue focusing on dangerous criminals, and continue to leave immigration law enforcement to federal authorities.

Some have expressed fear about becoming a sanctuary state because of Trump’s threats to cut off federal funding in retaliation, in a transparent attempt to bully us into compliance. There is some good news on this front. It is unclear if he can legally do this, and recently some courts have ruled that he cannot, so it may be an empty threat.

Beyond this, do we want to be complicit in something we know is wrong? Do we want to help ICE break apart families and ruin lives? There is little we can do to stop federal agents from deporting people, but at least we can refuse to help. Even federal resources are limited, and by refusing to help, we can reduce the number of people who are affected, and can keep the focus on deporting dangerous criminals.

People who come here illegally not to hurt anyone, but to build a better life for themselves and their families should not be hounded as dangerous criminals for doing so. At the minimum, they should have some kind of due process protections before deportation. Draconian measures such as Trump’s planned mass deportations will tear at the very fabric of our society. They cannot not be done without egregiously violating civil rights, damaging the economy, ripping families apart, and weakening the protections that are so vital to a democracy.

Trump wants to go farther than deporting dangerous criminals: his two influential advisers who wrote the orders, Stephen Miller and Stephen Bannon, have publicly revealed that they want all immigration to this country curtailed.

Trump has a history of seeing how far he can go, of testing the reaction to his policy proposals, and then backing off to something a little more moderate when there was too strong of a backlash. During his campaign, he repeatedly made extreme policy suggestions, and when too many people got angry, he denied ever saying anything so outrageous, instead blaming the “lying media” for making up stories (despite the documented evidence to the contrary). If we give in on this, he will likely keep coming back with ever more extreme policies. It is better to resist now, rather than wait until his policies are even harsher. So far Trump has focused on terrorism and illegal immigration, but if he gets the chance he will go after legal immigrants as well. Let’s make him afraid to try.

Targeted Increases, Widespread Austerity: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Senate Budget

Last week, we recommended 13 budget amendments for the Senate debate. What happened to them?

The Good

To start off with the good news, five of them were adopted. The Senate budget now includes greater funding for the Community Preservation Act–and thus more money for affordable housing and green and open space (Amendment 286), the Department of Environmental Protection (Amendment 790), workforce training to help those involved with the criminal justice system (Amendment 883), and the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, which helps provide access to justice for more low-income residents (Amendment 896).

And in a unanimous vote of 38-0, the Senate passed Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz’s amendment (Amendment 75) to put the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations into statute, which puts the House of Representatives on notice of its support for the identical bill S.223, which is part of our 2017-2018 Legislative Agenda. The formula the state uses to provide local aid to schools relies on outdated assumptions from 1993, resulting in chronic underfunding. The music on the radio isn’t the same as it was in 1993; our assumptions about the cost of education shouldn’t be the same either.

The Bad

But some of the results were less inspiring. The Senate rejected–without recorded votes– amendments to expand the earned income tax credit (Amendment 16), to increase funding for family planning services (Amendment 507), to increase funding for affordable housing programs for those with disabilities (Amendment 641), and to increase funding for partnerships between universities and prisons that contribute vital reentry services (Amendment 906).

And then four amendments were withdrawn: Sen. Jamie Eldridge’s amendment (Amendment 23) to repeal a tax cut for the mutual fund industry (which could have brought in $143 million per year in additional revenue), Sen. Joan Lovely’s amendment (Amendment 389) to repeal the outdated, punitive law that prevents parents from receiving welfare assistance for children born after that parent started receiving assistance from the state, Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry’s amendment (Amendment 645) to increase assistance for individuals experiencing homelessness, and Sen. Eric Lesser’s amendment (Amendment 1025) to allow municipalities to put questions on the ballot to raise additional revenue for regional transportation projects.

The budget ultimately passed unanimously, as is both common and reflective of a lack of ambition, and will now go to conference.

The Ugly

Although we are grateful to see some of these targeted funding increases get into the budget, the pattern of chronic underinvestment we highlighted last week remains a problem. If we want our Commonwealth to work for all residents, then we need to grapple with the revenue shortfalls faced year after year and end the hold of conservative anti-tax dogma.