After the street executions of Renée Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis, workers across the United States demanded accountability for the killers, called for the reining in of Trump’s private militia, and advocated for the abolition of ICE altogether. At the Massachusetts State House, Democrats knew they had to do something. That something materialized as the PROTECT Act, which was swiftly routed onto the express lane to ratification, despite its ineffectiveness.
On March 25, the Massachusetts Legislature’s Press Room issued a statement applauding the House’s passage of the PROTECT Act (H.5305), sponsored by the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus (BLLC). This followed a massive lobbying effort at the State House the previous week, organized by the Protecting Massachusetts Communities Coalition (PMC), chaired by the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Rights Advocacy (MIRA) Coalition and the Brazilian Workers Center. The coalition also includes the ACLU, SEIU, Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), and the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA).
Themed “Courage over Fear,” the lobbying event featured speeches by House and Senate leaders, Governor Maura Healey, and PMC coalition members. It coincided with the 30th annual “Immigrants Day at the State House,” marking three decades of largely unrewarded advocacy efforts to push Democrats — who control all three branches of state government — to enact meaningful protections for immigrants.
For years, advocates like PMC and MIRA have championed the bill’s predecessor, the Safe Communities Act, with little success. The Safe Communities Act languished in committee for a decade. But after ICE’s murders of Good and Pretti, Massachusetts Democrats sensed the shifting political winds and found it too risky to keep shelving immigration legislation.
Those who lobbied their representatives on March 18 were told that the House leadership was firmly behind the bill. In a state where 90 percent of House votes align with the Speaker and Democratic governor — not unlike “Trump’s” House of Representatives — the implication was clear: legislators had received their marching orders from Speaker Ron Mariano. Representatives assured constituents that the bill would pass, and it did, albeit in a considerably watered-down form.
Provisions of the PROTECT Act
There’s an awful lot of fine print, if not weasel wording, in the PROTECT Act. Federal 287(g) agreements essentially deputize local police to act as immigration agents. The PROTECT Act would allow these partnerships only if they pertain to formal criminal case collaboration, requiring public notice, comment, and consultation with the attorney general.
But that’s not the full picture. To avoid embarrassing Healey, who as attorney general emphasized her “law and order” bona fides and who as governor initially supported 287(g) programs before reversing her stance, the bill includes an exception for the state Department of Correction’s 287(g) agreement. It is also carefully worded to permit Intergovernmental Service Agreements with ICE, such as the one at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, which houses 500 victims of ICE raids.
The original PROTECT Act was far more restrictive. It prohibited law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status, barred state resources for civil enforcement, and limited the sharing of private information. The act banned initiating contact with ICE, prohibited new 287(g) agreements, and restricted civil arrests in courthouses to those supported by a judicial warrant. Additionally, it required employers to provide written notice to employees within 48 hours of I-9 audits, strengthened protections for detainees, expanded U and T visas, tasked the governor with limiting enforcement in state facilities, authorized the attorney general to prosecute state employees collaborating with ICE, and allowed the attorney general to prosecute anyone exploiting an immigrant’s status for extortion or fraud. It also mandated that the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) certify state law enforcement officers with previous ICE employment.
Just Add Water
Two new, significantly weakened versions of the bill were pushed through in a single week. The final “engrossed” version eliminated many of the original protections, including a free phone call within two hours of ICE detention, aspects of the locator system, access to legal services, and the ability of friends to confirm a detainee’s location. It diluted the definition of communications between state and federal law enforcement to a level that may render it unenforceable, removed the ban on assisting timed transfers to federal custody, eliminated the expansion of U-visa certifications, and nearly erased T-visas. Gone, too, are provisions intended to warn employees of impending I-9 audits. Furthermore, state law enforcement agencies can now hire former ICE agents without requiring expanded POST certifications, which might have considered their backgrounds in committing assaults and kidnappings.
The game being played by both the legislature and some of the bill’s advocates was to pass something, anything, even if it meant enacting weak or unenforceable protections. A proposed amendment allowing remote proceedings for minor civil hearings — common during COVID and still in effect in many states, including Massachusetts — was withdrawn. In fact, 75 percent of all amendments aimed at strengthening the bill were either rejected or withdrawn. The PROTECT Act, now significantly weakened, advances to the Senate as engrossed bill H.5316.
Despite the self-congratulation Massachusetts Democrats heaped on each other for doing something, the PROTECT Act in its current form represents yet another failure to fortify the rights of all working people in the state.
But this is a betrayal that goes way back.
The TRUST Act
On January 18, 2013, Carl Sciortino Jr. (D-34th Middlesex) filed the TRUST Act: An Act Relative to Restore Community Trust in Massachusetts Law Enforcement (H.1613). The act aimed to limit ICE detainer compliance and clarify state-federal responsibilities. Despite passing through the Judiciary, Public Safety, and Budget committees, it was repeatedly shelved, and the TRUST Act breathed its last in 2017. Even the bill’s minimal protections were deemed excessive by Democrats, leaving no safeguards in place when Trump was sworn in for the first time.
Safe Communities Act
In January 2017, Rep. Juana Matias (D-16th Essex) and Sen. James Eldridge (D-Middlesex/Worcester) filed the Safe Communities Act: An Act to Protect the Civil Rights and Safety of All Massachusetts Residents (H.3269). With three times the number of sponsors as the TRUST Act and substantial advocacy support, it reflected the hostile political climate for immigrants, who constitute about 4 percent of the commonwealth’s population. The bill faced significant obstacles, ultimately dying in the House Ways and Means Committee in 2020 after navigating the Public Safety and Homeland Security committees. Reintroduced as H.2418 in 2021, it again failed in 2023. Shortly thereafter, it was refiled as S.1510, only to be referred to the Rules Committee (S.2876), where it once again died in committee. Filed again in 2025, the Safe Communities Act (S.1681) remains stalled in the Homeland Security and Public Safety committees — an orphaned bill that permanently records the legislature’s contempt for meaningful immigrant protections.
Which Brings Us to the PROTECT Act
The PROTECT Act emerged from this backdrop, driven by legislators closely connected to their immigrant communities. In one account, the BLLC operated so independently that it surprised everyone by unveiling the bill just two days before filing. In another, House Speaker Mariano claimed a central role, maintaining the caucus’s focus and shepherding the bill through the House. Regardless of its origin, the caucus relied on the political machinery of a Democratic House intent on business as usual, and the party needed their support.
Law and Order!
Massachusetts Democrats often appear more attuned to Republican criticisms than to the opinions of their constituents. So, when the GOP accused Democrats of endorsing “sanctuary” provisions, the PROTECT Act was crafted to be sold as a simple affirmation of the separation between state and federal responsibilities — a useful clarification for law enforcement. Democrats also asserted that the legislation needed to be “bulletproof” to withstand federal challenges — as if the Trump administration adhered to any rulebook. This, of course, necessitated a significant toning down of the bill’s provisions.
Andres Vargas (D-Haverhill), a cosponsor of the PROTECT Act and chair of the BLLC, dismissed any suggestion that the bill’s swift passage resulted from political pressure: “This bill does not exist to make a political point. It exists to ensure that our courts function, that our officers preserve trust in our communities.”
At a press event after the bill’s passage in the House, its sponsors and Mariano congratulated one another, emphasizing that the primary objective was to ensure the integrity of the criminal-legal system. Regardless of the caucus’s claim to independence, they needed the political machinery of a Democratic House focused on business as usual, just as the rest of the party depended on them.
Despite the Limitations
No one can deny that good things have come from the PROTECT Act, the most significant being legislation that now at least pays lip service to protecting immigrants. While the Safe Communities Act was seven pages long and sponsored by 27 legislators, the PROTECT Act spans 22 pages and has 95 sponsors — almost half of the Massachusetts legislature. Its language reflects the urgency of blocking unconstitutional actions by a rogue federal militia and addressing the occasional street execution.
One advocate noted that 15 to 20 years ago, it was impossible to even mention immigrant rights to a legislator. Undocumented people were simply labeled “illegal.” After the 1988 “Willie Horton” incident, which haunted Michael Dukakis throughout his very long career, Massachusetts Democrats have been easily manipulated by the racist campaigns of white supremacist groups like the Tanton network. In 2011, these groups exploited a hit-and-run incident involving an undocumented Ecuadoran driver in Milford to advance their “keep them all out” agenda.
A Changing Landscape
But COVID altered the political landscape. First came driver’s licenses for undocumented workers (2022–23). During the pandemic, people witnessed immigrants performing essential services like food delivery. Law enforcement also recognized that public safety improved when all drivers were licensed and insured, regardless of immigration status. The Work and Family Mobility Act (H.4470/S.2851) opened a crucial door. Local groups like Chelsea’s La Colaborativa organized community support that helped push the bill over the finish line, linking it to broader fights for civil rights.
Next, the Tuition Equity bill (H.1281), first filed in 2017, finally passed in 2024. This legislation requires equal tuition for all children of Massachusetts workers. Backed by the governor, the Senate president, and state community colleges, the campaign aligned with national organizations like the President’s Alliance and the National Immigration Law Center to ensure equal treatment for students, regardless of immigration status.
These reforms are welcome and significant.
A Bill for Me but Not for Thee
It’s one thing to address issues like state driver’s licenses and in-state tuition. But a Safe Communities Act or a PROTECT Act is something different — it directly challenges the federal government, unnerving squeamish legislators, many of whom (like mine) are former prosecutors. In a state that is more purple than red, Massachusetts Democrats face slim election majorities and pressure from their left wing. To promote immigration reform, they often highlight law enforcement support in exchange for crafting legislation that is “acceptable” to that constituency. It’s likely that very few citizens were consulted about what they would like to see in the legislation or even counted as “stakeholders,” unlike cops and prosecutors.
The strategy of defending the system, regardless of how it treats people, is completely at odds with democracy and its fundamental purpose. Massachusetts Democrats habitually grant law enforcement disproportionate influence in exchange for political cover. As a result, nearly all state immigration legislation from 2013 to the present prioritizes police interests over community needs, reflecting the class interests of a Democratic Party that, if it chose to, could advocate for working people but instead allows police agencies to define their own responsibilities.
Caucus members conducted outreach to police, sheriffs, trial courts, and district attorneys. For instance, Essex County district attorney Paul F. Tucker expressed appreciation for the outreach. The Massachusetts Sheriffs Association endorsed the bill.
A predictable casualty of law enforcement demands was the first section of the original draft, which aimed to certify former and current ICE agents for employment with the state. This was blocked by the Massachusetts Police Association. Despite the caucus’s outreach, neither the Massachusetts Police Association, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, nor the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Association supported the PROTECT Act, although the Chiefs of Police had endorsed the earlier Safe Communities Act. As a recent WGBH article reported, police departments like Quincy’s have their own policies regarding ICE, and officers appear eager to act as assistant federal officers.
Another setback for the bill’s effectiveness stemmed from the cozy relationship between ICE and the courts. Currently, ICE calls a courthouse or lockup to inquire if a specific individual is in custody. Court officers can provide that information if it is public. ICE then visits the lockup, and the detainee is transferred into their custody. The original version of the PROTECT Act sought to impose additional limits on these communications. It was unsurprising when the courts resisted language that would significantly restrict their friendly interactions with ICE.
Chief Justice of the Trial Court Heidi Brieger claimed that she and Court Administrator Thomas Ambrosino maintain informal but strong relationships “at a very deep level” with ICE in New England, which have facilitated a system of “soft diplomacy.” She argues that this approach has helped avoid ICE crossing judicial “red lines,” such as arresting defendants in courtrooms or targeting people on trial. Brieger’s defense of collaborating with ICE is, as usual, framed as a public safety measure. But this is misleading; ICE has repeatedly arrested people in Massachusetts courthouses, even during court proceedings.
State Rep. Christopher Markey — likely Bristol County’s next district attorney — views provisions intended to prevent the kidnapping of defendants in court as “nearly impossible to enforce.” An amendment by Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven, which would have allowed defendants in certain cases to avoid court hearings altogether by appearing remotely, was withdrawn at the request of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. This surprised me — until I discovered that CPCS is managed by 15 directors appointed by the governor, the House and Senate presidents, and the Supreme Judicial Court.
When a Republican governor occupied the corner office, Democrats never even contemplated overriding his potential veto on the Safe Communities Act. Now, with a former “law and order” attorney general as governor who says of ICE, “I support them,” they again defer to police and conservative courts in exchange for political cover to “do something” — while never going too far. The system isn’t broken; it’s operating exactly as designed.
Workers’ Rights Mean Open Borders
We can argue about specific reforms in the TRUST, Safe Communities, or PROTECT Acts, but these discussions inevitably fail to address the question of worker rights. Reform is one thing; a campaign to defuse worker anger is another. The PROTECT Act was written to address public outrage, not systemic injustice. There is a bigger issue here: human and workers’ rights.
Every manner of life migrates for food and warmth. Multinational corporations move seamlessly across borders. There is no reason an ordinary worker should not be free to follow opportunities across those same borders. This is especially true in the U.S., where borders were redrawn by stealing land from people who are now arrested for crossing back into their ancestral lands. Why should anyone defend such borders?
Capitalists scream “national sovereignty!” to justify cruel policies that protect an exploitative economic system by regulating the flow of human capital across borders and using repression and racism to divide workers. But as demonstrated by the invasions of Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and Venezuela, along with the threatened invasions of Cuba and Greenland, these actions are not those of a class that respects “national sovereignty.”
Democracy won’t survive by building walls and concentration camps, establishing rubber-stamp “immigration courts,” and ignoring the fact that the working person without papers is just like the one with them. We don’t need borders because democracy cannot survive them. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that open migration is beneficial to a country.
Self-proclaimed patriots claim they are merely protecting “our way of life” from foreign “invasion.” But there is a growing understanding that our way of life — under the most predatory form of capitalism seen in a century — can be sustained only through mounting wars, pitting workers against each other, proliferating concentration camps, and increasing political repression.
Let’s not pretend otherwise: ICE is beyond reform. It has metastasized into a violent, unaccountable imperial army threatening democracy, and it must be dissolved — either with the stroke of a pen or through the voices of millions in the streets. Without borders to enforce, ICE’s violent machinery is unnecessary. Imagine the health care, housing, and education that could be funded with the hundreds of billions now allocated to “protecting national sovereignty.”
The PROTECT Act Isn’t Enough
In its current form, the PROTECT Act can’t do much. Massachusetts shut down its last 287(g) program in 2023, but an IGSA agreement remains. ICE still operates in state courts. Legislative amendments that merely tweak how and when ICE can function within state courts will not keep them out. The only effective barrier to preventing ICE from detaining defendants in state civil cases was rejected with flimsy excuses that lawmakers must answer for.
Immigrant rights groups are demanding meaningful amendments. LUCE’s new People’s PROTECT Act calls for actual protections, not political posturing. The ACLU, Prisoners’ Legal Services, and Citizens for Juvenile Justice seek to shut down state fusion centers (surveillance pipelines) and hold rogue officers accountable through POST certification. But there is disagreement among organizations: some advocate for the elimination of all IGSA and 287(g) programs, while others find detaining people at Plymouth — before they’re flown to Louisiana — tactically useful for habeas corpus filings.
Beyond Legislative Reform
Most proposed amendments to the PROTECT Act fall outside the narrow “judicial system protection” framework that has dominated this issue for 13 years. As long as reformers avoid challenging the system itself or questioning its legal or moral underpinnings, only the most limited reforms will be possible.
Consequently, electoral politics and lobbying have delivered negligible gains after decades of grueling work by immigration advocates. The system is rigged — gubernatorial vetoes, Speaker gatekeeping, and stacked committees answerable only to a few leaders, not the public. We need the abolition of ICE and full rights for immigrants, not the defense of a cruel and irreformable criminal-legal system designed to harm everyone and keep them in line. It’s time to stop playing along with the false defense of that system.
Left Voice nailed it in a March 24 article, “The Movement to Abolish ICE Must Fight for Full Rights for All Immigrants”: “The experience in Minneapolis points toward what we need nationwide. The fight for immigrant rights must become a fight taken up by unions, community organizations, students, and social movements together.”The good news is that we are already seeing this emergence, and not just in Minneapolis. On April 9, community activists, immigrant support network members, union representatives, one city councillor, and a state representative stood shoulder to shoulder with New Bedford fish house workers who were fired after allegedly being exploited and extorted by a temp agency working for a local trawler. They face an uphill battle before Trump’s NLRB, but this struggle demonstrates what is at stake for all of us.
The post Massachusetts “PROTECT Act” Does Little to Protect Immigrants Rights appeared first on Left Voice.
From Left Voice via This RSS Feed.