‘We're not sanctuary cities': WMass mayors push back at feds over DHS target list
SPRINGFIELD — With the Department of Homeland Security now cracking down on 'sanctuary jurisdictions,' leaders in targeted cities in Western Massachusetts are urging the president to reconsider or, in some cases, to check his facts.
Springfield, Amherst, Northampton and Holyoke made the new DHS 'sanctuary jurisdiction' list, as well as Hampshire, Franklin and Berkshire counties.
After learning of the new list, local municipal leaders pushed back at the federal administration.
'I've always maintained we are not a sanctuary city. I vetoed a City Council vote to make us a sanctuary, and the council overrode it,' said Springfield Mayor Domenic J. Sarno.
'I'm all for legal immigration. I'm first generation. But there used to be an orderly process,' he said, referring to his parents. 'The federal government walked away from this process and left it to cities and states.'
Springfield, instead, has a 'welcoming city' ordinance that looks a whole lot like a sanctuary city rule — primarily prohibiting city police from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations that have ramped up under President Donald J. Trump. He made a campaign vow to clamp down on undocumented immigrants.
The list was published Wednesday on Homeland Security's website and breaks down its targets by state, county and city.
In Massachusetts, there are a dozen communities on the list:
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Chelsea
Concord
Holyoke
Lawrence
Newton
Northampton
Orleans
Somerville
Springfield
'Was I surprised we were on the hit list? No. But I'm hoping President Trump and his team will take another look at Springfield's history and my leadership in particular on this issue,' Sarno said during an interview Friday.
Massachusetts as a whole makes the sanctuary list, probably, because of the Lunn decision, a 2017 court case that bars police from taking people into custody over a civil offense, said Sarang Sekhavat, chief of staff for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.
Homeland Security's list of a dozen Massachusetts communities doesn't match up with Northeastern University's comprehensive list of sanctuary communities, he noted.
'(It's) wonky,' Sekhavat said. 'People are really wondering where they came up with this list.'
Massachusetts counties don't have governments of their own, for instance.
And in Virginia, one conservative leaning county made the list because it proclaims itself as a gun-friendly '2nd Amendment Sanctuary' on its website, Sekhavat said.
'If the consequences of this weren't so serious, it would be ridiculous and worthy of mockery,' he said.
The list came on the heels of Trump's executive order late last month to produce a list of immigrant-friendly communities. The list released two days ago said it is a matter of public safety.
The list is labeled as Sanctuary Jurisdictions Defying Federal Immigration Law, and posits the following: 'Sanctuary cities protect dangerous criminal aliens from facing consequences and put law enforcement in peril,' read a statement from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
The list also came the same day Amherst town officials confirmed the arrests of two people by ICE on May 28.
'The town of Amherst and the Amherst Police Department did not participate in either of these incidents and have not participated in any federal immigration enforcement actions that have occurred. ICE operated independently from the town with no prior notification. No additional information is available at this time,' a statement from the town manager read.
It's unclear whether the list will have any teeth. It includes no directives other than a pledge to send letters to towns and cities that appear to be immigrant-friendly.
A federal judge in California ruled the Trump administration is not constitutionally allowed to limit federal funding to states and cities that have opposing politics.
'The town of Amherst is a sanctuary community and as such shall not cooperate with ICE,' the statement continued.
In Holyoke, Mayor Joshua A. Garcia said the definition of a sanctuary city is murky.
'There is no universally accepted definition of a 'sanctuary city,' and if one exists, Holyoke should not be considered one. Nowhere in my executive order does the word 'sanctuary' appear. The order simply directs our police officers to follow the law and not act as federal immigration agents. If it is the case where an individual poses a legitimate public safety concern, such as being charged with or convicted of a serious or violent crime, they could be held longer on a detainer,' he said.
Garcia in January sent out strong statements, urging support for immigrants. He worries that undocumented immigrants might fear calling police in emergencies, given the national climate.
'As mayor, my responsibility is to keep everyone in Holyoke safe, residents and visitors alike. We cannot afford to have anyone afraid to call 911 or help police because they fear deportation. Public safety depends on trust, communication and cooperation, and that is exactly what we are working to protect,' Garcia said in the statement.
ICE sweeps have been scattered in Western Massachusetts, and the federal agency has been largely cloak-and-dagger about its operations, rejecting media inquiries.
In Northampton, Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra revived a statement she released in November.
'The enforcement of federal immigration laws is outside the authority of local law enforcement, and Northampton has a long-standing policy of non-cooperation with such actions to the extent permissible by law,' she said.
A chief of staff said Sciarra had no further comment.
Staff writer Jim Kinney contributed to this report.
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Representatives Jasmine Crockett, Brandon Gill react to President Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
When it comes to their political views, U.S. Representatives Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas, and Brandon Gill, R-Flower Mound, could not be more different. They both sounded off on what President Trump calls the "big, beautiful bill". The bill narrowly passed in the U.S. House and includes tax and spending cuts, border security funding, and energy policy provisions. It extends and makes permanent the tax cuts passed during the first Trump administration. The bill adds two of the President's campaign promises: no tax on tips and no tax on overtime pay. The President also campaigned for no tax on Social Security. While that's not in the bill, seniors will receive an additional $4,000 on top of the standard deduction. Rep. Crockett joined all Democrats to oppose the legislation. "It's a disaster for the American people. This is a disaster for anyone who is not from the top 1%. They decided that they would throw a few crumbs in there to make people believe that they were doing something great for them. The kind of idea of no tax on tips and things like that, it's more so a game," Crockett told CBS News Texas during an interview for Eye On Politics. Rep. Gill was among the majority of Republicans who voted in favor of the measure. "A permanent extension of the 2017 tax cuts is the biggest tax cut for working-class families in American history. That is a huge conservative win. It's going to put more money back in the pockets of working-class families. This is something that I think we'll see broad support for now," Gill told CBS News Texas an interview. The legislation also reduces the growth of Medicaid, the healthcare program for low-income individuals, by $880 billion over a decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 8.6 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. Gill said this has to be done. "We are reforming Medicaid to make sure that it is sustainable and viable for the core Medicaid population. In other words, what we're doing is protecting Medicaid. We've got just shy of five million, about 4.8 million Americans who are working age and able-bodied, who are on Medicaid but are not working or seeking work," Gill said. "That's a problem. Most Americans agree with us. There are 1.4 million illegal aliens that are on Medicaid right now. We're taking them off." Crockett disagreed. "I say that they are really good at spinning it. What they have decided is that they need to somehow figure out how they are going to rein in some of the spending. They just didn't want to make it seem like it was that bad," she said. Crockett also criticized the $330 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. "The number of people who are going to go hungry," Crockett said. "Unfortunately, we have a hunger issue in this country. It just doesn't seem right, because it isn't right. This is literally a reverse Robin Hood." Crockett dismissed criticism from Republicans who have said Democrats all voted against the tax cuts. "I say it's a lie, and it's a game. We know that this was just about taking care of the billionaires. It's a billionaire tax scam," said Crockett. Gill said the bill represents the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. "As we're looking at the economy and how we measure success, Democrats measure success by the number of people that they can get on welfare rolls on the public dole. Republicans measure success by the number of people that we can lift out of poverty, that we can lift off of the welfare rolls," said Gill. The U.S. Senate is now reviewing the bill and will likely make changes. Watch Eye On Politics at 7:30 a.m. Sunday morning on CBS News Texas, on air and streaming on the CBS News app. Follow Jack on X: @cbs11jack
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abcarian: Was Le Slap a love tap or an assault? France's first couple offer a distraction from bad news
Not that you asked, but yes, I have been feeling a bit overwhelmed by all the bad news out of Washington: Pardons for tax cheats who line President Trump's pockets. Talk of pardons for the violent criminals who conspired to kidnap and kill Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Dinners for crypto moguls who shower him with money. His monomaniacal quest to extinguish the light of the country's most prestigious university. His budget that will deprive millions of their healthcare coverage, while slashing taxes for the rich and swelling the $36 trillion national debt by an estimated $3.8 trillion. And don't get me started on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s inane move that could make it harder for pregnant women to get COVID-19 shots, thus depriving their infants of protection against the virus when they are vulnerable and not yet eligible for vaccination. Read more: Abcarian: Bravo to all those engaged in the struggle against Trump's anti-democratic bullying Good heavens, I needed a distraction. Happily, it arrived in the form of an unexpected video. You may have seen it: Last Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron's wife, Brigitte, got tongues wagging when she did something that seemed entirely out of character for the painfully elegant first lady. She was caught on camera squishing her hands right into his handsome face. It looked like an act of hostility. I was intrigued. I know, I know. It's hardly world-shattering news. But who doesn't perk up a bit when the scrim of perfection that shields the private lives of high-profile, perfectly turned-out couples is torn, even for one brief moment? Who can forget the sight of First Lady Melania Trump swatting away her husband's hand during a 2017 visit to Tel Aviv? Or the way her smile faded during his first inauguration the moment he looked away from her, inspiring the #FreeMelania hashtag? Read more: Abcarian: America was gaslit by the arrogance of Joe Biden and his enablers For all the drama and rumor that swirled around the Clintons' marriage, I can't think of any public moment when they did not appear civil with one another, even after his disastrous relationship with a White House intern. And the Obamas? Is there any other intensely scrutinized political couple who seem so downright normal? Not that anyone ever really knows what's going on in anyone else's marriage. Which brings us back to the Macrons. His plane was on the tarmac in Hanoi, where he was kicking off a tour to strengthen ties with countries in Southeast Asia. As the plane door opened, the couple were caught unawares. A startled-looking Macron backed up as disembodied hands smushed his face. He instantly collected himself, and his wife appeared at his side. As they began to descend the staircase, he offered her his arm, which she did not take. Read more: Abcarian: Finally, a 'beautiful' Trump tariff move? The bizarre clip went viral, and sent the French government, known as the Élysée Palace, into what one headline described as 'chaos.' Part of the chaos stemmed from the government first claiming that the clip was not real but was possibly a deep fake created by AI and exploited by Russia to make Macron seem weak. After the Associated Press authenticated the video, the French government changed its tune, describing the moment as merely a playful interaction between the couple. Unsurprisingly, given their back story, the Macrons have been the subject of intense fascination for years. They met in 1993 at a Catholic high school in northern France when he was 15. She, nearly 40 at the time, and a married mother of three, was his drama teacher. His parents were so concerned about the impropriety of their relationship that they sent him away to Paris for his senior year. Read more: Abcarian: Another Big Lie: RFK Jr. wants to make America healthy again In 2006, she divorced her husband, and married Macron the following year. He was 29. She was 54. 'Of course, we have breakfast together, me and my wrinkles, him with his youth, but it's like that,' Macron told Elle France in 2017. 'If I did not make that choice, I would have missed out on my life.' Unfortunately, Le Slapgate threatened to overshadow the Macrons' trip. 'We are squabbling and, rather, joking with my wife,' he told reporters, complaining that the incident was being overblown into 'a sort of geo-planetary catastrophe.' Read more: Abcarian: The government's pronatalism warps family values A few days later, though, he was making light of the incident. Or at least trying to. On Tuesday in Jakarta, Indonesia, as his plane door opened, another disembodied hand appeared, this time waving before Macron stepped into the camera frame smiling before he walked down the stairs arm in arm with his wife. Ha ha. For a brief moment, the squabbling of one of the world's most interesting couples gave us a much needed break from the actual geo-planetary catastrophe unfolding around us. For that, the Macrons have my gratitude. Merci, you crazy lovebirds. @ @rabcarian If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Hey, men, Democrats want your votes. They really do.
Where are the Democrats? What are they doing about the damage President Donald Trump is doing to … everything? I hear that a lot from my liberal friends these days, ever since Trump swept the battleground states six months ago and proceeded to dismantle government as we Americans used to know it. With the fury of a man who is trying to make up for the time he lost on the sidelines after losing to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has been rolling out radical changes almost daily that seem to be aimed at retribution — one of his favorite words — more than decent governance. In the face of the onslaught, Democrats sound about as depressed as the party's approval ratings — 27% in a recent NBC News poll. That's the party's lowest positive rating in the network's polling data since 1990. Only 7% say their support is 'very positive.' Throwing more salt into their wounds is the simmering discontent among the party's core constituencies, upon whom the party has come to count for decades: young people, Black voters and Latinos, in particular. Trump made notable gains with these voters, a trend that — unlike 2016 — included Trump's winning the popular vote for the first time. Self-identified Democratic voters say by a 2-to-1 margin in the NBC poll that they would rather see their party 'hold the line on their positions, even if it leads to gridlock,' instead of looking for areas of compromise to, as the old Capitol Hill saying goes, get things done. As a self-described moderate liberal, I'm dismayed but not surprised by that angst-driven reaction. Trump's slash-and-burn approach to reform — on issues as varied as immigration enforcement to Medicaid to Veterans Affairs and COVID-19 shots, just for starters, will take a strong pushback just to land somewhere near the ever-elusive sensible center. Where are the Dems now? Of particular interest this time around, the party is trying to woo young men — diligently. The harsh Democratic reality includes downward long-term trends for Democrats while Republicans have been gaining ground in recent decades, particularly among noncollege graduates. Working-class voters have been turning away from the Democrats, long viewed as the party for working families but increasingly perceived as the party of college-educated 'elites.' Which leads us to the most significant new moves by the Dems' donor class and strategists: a $20 million 'strategic plan' called 'Speaking with American Men,' or SAM for short. That's right, guys. Like an old Uncle Sam poster, today's Democrats want you! Perhaps more than ever. The decline of men and concomitant rise of women in Democratic voting ranks has been observed for decades and is not expected to change drastically soon. Democratic pollsters are advising the party leaders to avoid taking the wrong lessons from the 2026 midterms, when many of them hope President Trump's excesses will backfire in favor of the Dems. That's wise. Trump's successes, including his victory last year, have tended to be larger than expected after the Democrats underestimated his popularity. As Anat Shenker-Osorio, a Democratic consultant told The New York Times, 'Voters are hungry for people to actually stand up for them — or get caught trying.' In other words, she said, 'The party is doing a lot of naval-gazing and not enough full-belly aching.' I, too, have heard that lament, particularly from Democrats in cities like Chicago who remember an era when the party seemed less concerned with trying to sound polite and more concerned with delivering the goods to its constituents. That's especially important at times like these when funding cuts for research, veterans and health care, among other issues, can mean life and death for them. Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at NYU and a prominent commentator, has gained a measure of fame for his speeches and research on the feeling of abandonment by the Dems that has been a major turnoff for the audience of the so-called 'Manosphere' of male podcasting. He argues that the party's focus on other demographics, like women voters, is important, but has fed a feeling of neglect and abandonment among young men. This development caught little attention in the era before podcasting. But today's electorate, like the news, is not what it used to be. Democrats will have to keep up with changing times before the party's candidates are overwhelmed by them.
