Boston City Council reaffirms support for measure that bars city departments from helping mass-deportation efforts
The City Council today voted unanimously to keep Boston's sanctuary-city status and remind city departments not to help any federal "civil immigration
enforcement" efforts, including the incoming federal administration's announced plans to set up concentration camps for immigrants before they are booted out of the country.
The vote came on a resolution in support of the city's Trust Act, first passed in 2014 and amended in 2019.
Councilors emphasized the measure does not cover local participation with federal criminal investigations - such as those into human trafficking or weapons trafficking - but are instead a way to protect Boston's immigrant residents. If anything, councilors said, the Trust Act can help fight crime by ensuring all residents feel comfortable talking to police about criminal activity they might have witnessed or know about.
Boston "has long been a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants," Council President Ruthzee Louijeune, who proposed the resolution, said.
"Boston is a city of immigrants," Councilor Julia Mejia (at large) said. "Our city thrives because of the contributions of people from across the world. ... Boston will not stand for policies that divide families, that tear communities apart or perpetuate fear."
Councilor Gabrila Coletta Zapata (East Boston, North End, Charlestown), said the measure means immigrants "don't have to live in fear of being unjust scrutinized or even ripped away from their families." She praised Boston Police in general, and District A-7 (East Boston) and Capt. Dean Bickerton in particular, for their support of immigrant communities. She said Bickerton even attended "Know Your Rights" meetings in East Boston during the first Trump administration.
Councilor Benjamin Weber (Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury), an attorney, said courts have determined that the obscure Tenth Amendment - which grants states any powers not elaborated in the Constitution - actually has an "anti-commandeering" doctrine that bars the federal government from forcing state or local agencies to do its bidding, such as helping in immigrant roundups.
Ad:
Comments
What happens next?
Trump and cronies have said that they intend to force sanctuary cities to comply by withholding federal funding, grants, etc.
The court and/or congress might intervene but that's not a given and the funds might be held up for years regardless. (Assuming they follow through on the threat.)
So what is the Council's and Wu's position if maintaining this position means losing a major source of funding?
Congress - Holds the Purse
Mass. Delegation - You want that new bridge to access your cousin's 1,800 unit subdivision in Greater Houston Republican Congressperson?
Then back off on denying school lunches for kids from Haiti staying in a hotel in West Springfield.
That's how it will work.
It's likely going to be a lot worse than that
Our city and state, at least, is not complying in advance with a fascist administration, but I suspect the Trumpers will be true to their campaign rhetoric and go as far as sending in the national guard. They don't give a sh*t about what congress does or doesn't do with its three seat majority.
Province of New England
Has a nice ring to it.
We pay way too much in federal taxes to put up with this shit.
Like we will be getting our federal money back anyway? LOL! We are on HRM Drumpf's Naughty List for failing to kiss his ass already.
Communities Act
Everything you said is true about the Communities act too - if not in compliance you lose out on state grants. And you’re totally ok with it too, right?
Weston just unanimously (essentially) voted down to be in compliance with the Communities Act. That’d be A LOT of MA income tax lost especially if you include Milton too.
City Council
Any other news from our beloved Plutocracy?
Why didn't we win the Presidency The House and The Senate ?
Boston City Council and Mayor Wu .... hold my beer.
Uh
Are you saying "we" lost the election because we weren't cruel enough to desperate humans looking for a safe place to live for their families?
Interpret it however you like
When the "Law" is Inhumane
The only human thing to do is to break the law.
Would you vote to abolish immigration laws?
That's a big step
Not Necessarily
But I would vote to change our stupid and cruel immigration system that has remained in stasis since the 2000's so republicans can use it as a wedge issue.
What happened to this year's bill for immigration enfocement?
Oh, that's right. Trump got his sycophants in the House to kill it because he only cares about immigration when it comes to getting votes, but doesn't actually give a shit about improving the current system.
Nobody's talking about abolishing immigration laws unless they're GOPers completely misrepresenting their political opposition.
We lost out of the sheer
We lost out of the sheer arrogance assuming Republicans would vote to disenfranchise themselves and more importantly the body of Democrats would continue to vote to disenfranchise ourselves and allow the anti-democratic, anti-liberal, antisemitic, anti-reason and anti-Western fringe to dictate social, domestic and foreign policy.
Not "we" for you, Trump Bot
You're just a shill who constantly types baseless right wing talking points under the completely ridiculous claim that you're a democrat.
Also, again, f*ck you for calling jews like me and Bernie Sanders anti-semitic.
The Judge was just trying to help him be safe
A sitting Judge Helping a guy wanted for removal from the country escape, is another reason the Election went the way it did, in my opinion People read stuff like that that and all they can do is vote for people who will hopefully stop it.
The Baker-appointed Judge Was Indicted
And now facing charges from a state commission. What more do you want, put her in the stocks?
I was making a point
I'm pointing out people don't want judges like that, and all they can do is vote and hope those they vote for agree
Once Harris got on the Ballot she suddenly disavowed her incredibly lenient view on immigration. coincidence? I don't think so, she knew it wouldn't help her get elected so she changed up, people saw through it,
Ha
Everyone has a pet reason why Harris narrowly lost. "She didn't do exactly what I wanted so of course she lost." I doubt her immigration stance moved the needle much, nor do I accept we should settle for persecuting those least able to fight back like immigrants and trans people in order to win votes. We can be better.
My pet reason why Harris lost is because the culture, fed by right wingers running social media and the press, is sick. An informed, rational electorate does not vote for an openly corrupt fascist promising "mass deportations" and concentration camps.
my pet reason harris lost
she’s a fucking dope
Dems lost
Because Kamala ran the Martha Coakley and Hillary Clinton playbooks.
What stopped the Vice President of the United States from taking a break from Pennsylvania campaigning to travel to the next state over to throw the first pitch at the World Series? Where was the Hot Ones appearance? Hell, her staff actually turned down Joe Rogan.
I don't know how she would have done on Rogan
Her interview style seems to need scripting ,
2 and a half hours just winging it probably would have hurt more than help, but you never know.
They could have started talking about ancient Egypt and how Rogan thinks aliens might have built everything, and people would like her when she agreed ....lol
Duplicate post
Someone picked up the phone and broke the internet connection.....lol
Damn AOL