By Sean Sullivan 

Likely spurred into action by results of the presidential election late last year, town officials are seeking to clarify Natick’s role in matters of illegal immigration.

The short answer so far: Massachusetts towns and cities have no such role.

Within days of the publication of this writing, a new federal administration will be certified within halls of our nation’s capitol. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump had promised a mass mobilization of resources to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. 

His election in November has since left state and local governments across the country to ponder (and plan for) what that might mean for municipalities.

Could local law enforcement, for example, be “deputized” by federal agencies to detain undocumented immigrants? 

The answer to that one, at least for towns and cities in The Bay State, is no.

In a statement of legal guidance released by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, the group makes clear that immigration issues and enforcement are outside the authority of state and local government.

In fact, the memo makes clear that Massachusetts cities and towns might expose themselves to legal liability by taking part in immigration enforcement efforts.    

The memo says that under state law, “there is no statutory or common-law authority permitting state or local law enforcement officers to detain individuals solely based on a federal civil immigration detainer.”

An “immigration detainer” is a request from a federal authority to hold an individual for the purposes of federal immigration enforcement. If someone is arrested for a violation of local law for instance, they would be further detained for up to 48 hours beyond the typical time prescribed for their primary offence.

Those additional two days of detention would be an acquiescence by local government to the federal request. And as the memo also makes clear, it would be just that—a request. No federal statute exists to empower the federal government to compel states, cities and towns to take such action.   

At a packed December 11th Select Board Meeting, residents gathered to hear about Natick’s deliberations and decisions relating to the immigration question. An online survey was conducted by the town in anticipation of that meeting, an effort to garner and gauge public sentiment and questions surrounding the issue.   

At the meeting, the Select Board sought to address some of those questions posed by residents. A thread through many of those queries was a concern that the board’s new guidance was designed to shelter undocumented immigrants from federal authorities.

Put another way, some residents seemed concerned that the policy would designate Natick as a “sanctuary city”—a vague and politically charged term that has little or no legal purchase.

 “That is not what the policy is about,” said Kathryn Coughlin to a full house at the meeting. She serves as Select Board Chair. “It’s about ensuring the town and its employees are compliant with state and federal laws regarding immigration. And it protects the town from liability.”

“If you look at other towns that have adopted this…,” added Coughlin, “they have not seen, in the seven years that they’ve had these policies, an influx of migrants.”

The reason for that, she said, is the widespread high cost of housing in the municipalities she cited.

With the new policy, added Coughlin, the board is also seeking to bolster public safety. Immigrants fearing questions about their legal status, she said, are less likely to report crimes or work with authorities in solving them.

“This type of mutual trust and cooperation is absolutely crucial,” said Select Board Vice Chair Bruce Evans, “in preventing and solving crime incidents, as well as maintaining public order, safety, and security in the entire community.”

Evans was quoting here from a proposed police policy regarding its relationship to immigrant communities.

“State law says that police officers, and by extension town employees, cannot ask for documentation,” said Coughlin.

“We shall and must release them,” said Natick Police Chief James Hicks, who spoke at the meeting. “We cannot hold for 48 hours; we can only hold for the time period it takes to process that prisoner.”

Chief Hicks added that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association does not consider proposed policies like Natick’s to pose a safety risk to residents.

One question that stood out in the online survey was whether the town should use resources to assist national immigration enforcement efforts. Approximately two-thirds of local respondents replied that Natick should not.      

 “The consensus was,” said Select Board member Richard Sidney, “do not use town funds or staff to assist federal immigration laws.”