By Sean Sullivan

Natick outlined its official policy regarding illegal immigrants last month. 

Crafting, implementing and enforcing immigration policy has vexed nations and governments the world over, acutely so during the last few decades. It comes as little surprise then, to find small towns and cities struggling with the topic. Any reasonable and rational “solution” to the immigration issue seems guaranteed to leave a large portion of constituents dissatisfied. So sequestered seems each camp in its corner, that compromise and empathy feel out of reach.

It’s a sort of trench warfare, each side separated by a legislative no-man’s-land in the center. There’s little common language to unite the two factions. The process is punctuated by political pot shots, and progress can be measured in inches gained and then lost.

Few dare to venture into that middle ground—to propose a solution that includes the practical and good-faith points that could be found on each side. And so most are forced into choosing a side.          

So it is with Natick’s new policy on the matter.

A few years ago, the town’s Select Board was petitioned by advocates to designate Natick a “sanctuary town.” That would have added the municipality to a handful of other Massachusetts towns and cities that have adopted the label.

It’s a distinction that’s meant to signal a community’s support for local immigrant populations, but one that carries little definition or clarity.  What is clear is that immigration advocates relish the label, and those advocating for stricter immigration laws recoil from it.

“That was off the table from the beginning,” said Kathryn Coughlin of the sanctuary designation. She serves as Chair of Natick’s Select Board. A main reason for that rejection, she said, was that it would have frozen lines of communication between the town and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

“That’s not ideal from a public-safety standpoint,” said Coughlin. “Our police chief didn’t want that.”

A memo released a few weeks ago by the Select Board outlined what Natick could (and could not) do in matters relating to immigration. The memo outlined the results of the Select Board’s Dec. 18th vote on the issue last year.

If distilled down to an overriding guiding principle, the board’s decision is an effort to keep the town in compliance with state and federal laws. And keeping the town in that legal lane is in large part an aim to shield Natick from potential liability.

Massachusetts courts have held that state and local government officers have a limited role (if any) to play in enforcing federal immigration policy. 

Seeking to underscore that guidance, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association released a memo of its own. In that statement, the group makes clear that immigration issues and enforcement are outside the authority of state and local governments.

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

Following that advice is what the Natick Select Board seeks to do with its new policy on immigration documentation.

Directive number two on the board’s recent memo: “No employee of the Town shall inquire about or collect any information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual unless Federal Laws or the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts require municipal employees to do so.”

That is the line that sanctuary town advocates might cite to say that Natick isn’t doing enough to support local immigrant populations. For those favoring stricter immigration controls, it’s also the line they might cite to say the town isn’t being tough enough.

But with its new policy, said 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.

“The overriding concerns that I heard and read from hundreds of letters was that ‘we’re concerned about our pocketbooks and concerned about public safety.’”

In the few years since the sanctuary town status was proposed, Coughlin said the board has been in constant contact with Natick’s legal counsel to figure a way forward. The body also researched neighboring towns to see what policies they’d adopted, what lessons could be learned from those examples.  

Absent the board’s new guidance, Coughlin offered a few hypotheticals of how the town might run legally afoul of state law.

If a health inspector was visiting a restaurant, or a building inspector attending to a structure in Natick, asking about the residency or immigration status of workers on site would be beyond the roles of those town employees.

“I don’t see this ever happening with them,” said Coughlin of Natick officials. “They’re fantastic.”

Still, the Select Board seeks with its new policy to clarify and ensure the protocol for all Natick staff in this domain.

“Town employees should be working for the town of Natick,” said Coughlin, “not enforcing federal immigration law.”

If workers in the examples above were asked about their legal status or for documentation, the town might be on the hook for violation of state law.  

“Whether that person is documented or undocumented,” said Coughlin in such scenarios, “they sue the town and then we’re writing a check for liability. So I want to avoid that at all costs.”

Deliberating and legislating on this debate hasn’t been cost-free personally for Coughlin.

On a weekend morning after Thanksgiving of last year, she awoke to find her car had been vandalized. Its exterior was keyed and an anti-immigrant message spray-painted there. All told, Coughlin said the damage is estimated at $6,700.

Serving on the Select Board is a volunteer position, one requiring hours in excess of a full-time job. Coughlin said “Tempers were really hot” in the weeks since the policy began to be debated at town meetings. The receipt of some “really ugly” letters has also been a part of the process.

At a meeting last month, the board’s Chair announced that residents wishing to speak at meetings on the topic would no longer be asked for their names or addresses. Several had approached her, said Coughlin, to say they didn’t feel comfortable divulging such information in our current political climate.

Asked about her personal thoughts on immigration, the sun seemed to alight for a moment upon that middle ground that’s been so elusive in this debate.  

“I would really like to see our federal government solve this problem,” said Coughlin. “I think we need a strong border. I think we need a strong asylum system. Most people who come here want to work.” 

And as to the person(s) who trespassed upon her own property and caused damage, Coughlin said she thinks the culprits don’t reside in Natick.

“I don’t see Natick residents doing that. I choose to believe I’m in a town where people wouldn’t do that.”          

But to state that any town or municipality has an immigration policy is a bit of a misnomer. Local governments must stay within the lanes of their state’s laws, just as states must defer to federal statues.

Natick’s new policy rather, is one that directs town employees and officers to adhere to state and federal laws regarding matters of immigration.

Those town meetings overflowed with attendees, residents who held strong opinions on the matter of immigration enforcement.