By Bob Katzen
House 25-131, rejected an amendment that would provide a mechanism for law enforcement and the courts to detain individuals for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the person poses a direct threat to public safety. It would specifically allow for the detainment of individuals for possible immigration violations for up to 12 hours upon receipt of a written request and warrant from ICE.
“This amendment is an attempt to respond to the 2017 Commonwealth v. Lunn decision, in which the Supreme Judicial Court determined the authority to honor ICE detainer requests is not expressly permitted under current statutes,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “The amendment is a relatively modest proposal because the authorization is limited to ICE detainer requests for individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety for engaging in, or being suspected of engaging in, specific crimes such as terrorism or espionage, criminal street gang activity, sexual abuse or exploitation, human trafficking, unlawful firearm possession and drug distribution or trafficking.”
Rep. Daniel Cahill (D-Lynn) opposed the amendment and said there are criminal detainers issued by ICE and there are civil detainers. He noted that as a former prosecutor, he understands that when there’s a criminal warrant for an ICE detainer from a defendant and they are in the custody of Massachusetts, there is a cooperation with ICE to ensure that upon release of that defendant, or sometimes while a case is pending, ICE is notified and they’re allowed to come pick up that defendant. What we’re talking about here would be for Massachusetts to cooperate with the federal government in civil detainers. The law says here in Massachusetts, we are not to detain someone a moment — not 12 hours, not 12 seconds. When your case is concluded, you leave. What the federal government wants us to do is expend resources to hold people beyond that time. That’s a constitutional problem.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Christine Barber No Rep. Mike Connolly No Rep. Paul Donato No Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven Didn’t Vote