ON MARCH 25, federal agents detained and took into custody Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University graduate student, as she left her apartment. It happened in broad daylight on a Somerville street, just across the city line from Medford, where I live and serve as a city councilor.  

Rumeysa, a Turkish national, has not been charged with a crime; there was no warrant for her arrest. Nevertheless, she was surveilled for several days before being surrounded and taken away by federal agents. She has since been transported to custody in Louisiana, her student visa terminated.  

Why? Because last year Rumeysa co-authored an op-ed for the student-run Tufts Daily calling upon the university to acknowledge Israel’s genocide in Palestine, and urging the university to divest its holdings from Israeli companies. Apparently, writing an essay for a student newspaper is now tantamount to literal terrorism.  

I am Jewish, so according to President Trump and his “border czar,” Tom Homan, I should be grateful for this inhumane breach of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Indeed, the current administration would have us all believe that Rumeysa’s seizure leaves me, and American Jews like me, all a little bit safer and freer.  

It is difficult to fully capture how offensive and disrespectful it is to see my religious identity co-opted and used as a tool by dictators and their allies to erode our constitutional rights. It is repellent that the rhetoric of Jewish safety continues to be weaponized to justify genocide abroad and political kidnappings at home.  

But none of this matters to them – Jews simply provide a premise through which to take formerly inalienable rights and render them conditional. They are insisting that this is necessary — that we should feel endangered, alone, and welcome an overbearing protector. The truth is much darker.  

Jews are not alone at all when we are, all of us, united in being seen by this administration as nothing more than either pawns or targets, in a ploy to divorce us all of our rights.  

Right now, Trump’s administration is detaining, vilifying, and deporting the most vulnerable in our society: from pro-Palestine student activists like Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, to outspoken labor organizers like Jeanette Vizguerra and Alfredo Juarez. In their propaganda, our leaders spread fantastical lies about these people’s doings and the supposed danger that they pose.  

Their goals are so obvious: to intimidate activists into hiding, to intimidate labor organizers into silence, to make everyone afraid to speak up, out of fear of being next. Inventing scapegoats, poisoning neighbor against neighbor.  

It is a sick and sinister strategy to distract us from the real danger to Americans: the Trump administration’s systemic attack on our system of checks and balances and their catastrophic economic agenda. 

They know that the more that Americans are preoccupied by false enemies and straw men, the more vulnerable we will be to their campaign to dismantle our democracy, strip us of our rights and our privacy, and funnel wealth from everyday Americans to the billionaire class.  

If our leaders were actually invested in Americans’ security and prosperity, I could point to a long list of problems – from the severe shortage of affordable housing to the punishing cost of health care – where action from the federal government could improve people’s lives dramatically.   

But matters of actual public interest are apparently of no interest. While regular people’s lives get more and more expensive, the Trump administration expedites billions to oppressive governments and handily funds the ICE apparatus. Not to mention, threatening to revoke federal funding to sanctuary cities or otherwise ornery cities as a coercion tactic. 

I am scared for Rumeysa and all of Trump’s and Homan’s political prisoners; I am furious at how our identities are being trafficked for Trump’s and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political goals; and I am furious that our fates are nothing more than a game to these people.  

But even so, somehow, I am still hopeful and filled with resolve. Because when I look around, in Medford, Somerville, all throughout Greater Boston, what I see is regular people working together to provide the safety, protection, defense, and resources that the federal government is actively taking away. Mass protests; ICE watch groups; a wellspring of mutual aid; and more. And it all just comes from normal, garden-variety human compassion and neighborliness. 

The Trump administration will continue to tell us that we are under attack. They will continue to try and convince us that the price for our own safety and futures is selling out our neighbors and letting our rights be taken away. They will continue to try to cow city and state governments into submission and collaboration.  

They are counting on us just standing by. They are counting on us falling for the lies.  

But it won’t work. We know that our neighbor here on a work visa is not our enemy. We know that the student exercising their right to free speech is not our enemy. We know that the activist protesting our tax dollars funding genocide while Americans at home go hungry and homeless is not our enemy. We know we have one common enemy, and it’s the administration that’s snatching our neighbors and stealing our rights.  

Massachusetts, it’s time to meet the moment. Fascism is back, but we have some advantages: a long history of standing up to bullies and the defiant “Masshole” spirit, to name a couple. And to my fellow elected officials – right now, once again, the people of our communities are showing us what bravery looks like. Let’s follow their lead. 

Kit Collins is vice president of the Medford City Council.  

The post With arrest of Rumeysa Ozturk, Trump is pulling out all the stops to divide us. It won’t work.  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

PRESIDENT TRUMP has made immigration a top issue of his second term, signing a number of executive orders and promising further action. These policies include limiting legal immigration and ending birthright citizenship.

Amid these sweeping policy changes, a rift has emerged amongst the President’s allies. On one side, Sriram Krishnan, Elon Musk, and their allies advocate for increasing high-skilled immigration; on the other, Steve Bannon and his allies call for limiting all legal immigration.

A major source of this rift is growing evidence that immigration, especially highly skilled immigration, is a net benefit for host nations. Indeed, recent research suggests legal immigrants are net job creators because of the exceptionally high likelihood that they will own businesses.

A 2023 Pioneer Institute study confirms that this is true for Massachusetts, where immigrants own half of all Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state, employing almost 900,000 people. Another recent Pioneer study finds that the most immigrant-dense large cities in the US host 15 percent more startups per capita than their less immigrant-dense counterparts and more than double the IPOs and high-value acquisitions per capita. 

In almost every geographic context, immigrants with both high and low levels of education are more likely than non-immigrants to open businesses. 

Unfortunately, we are not taking full advantage of the economic potential of legal immigrants. Despite most Americans supporting steps to make the immigration process easier, 99.4 percent of immigrant applicants were ineligible to come to the U.S. in 2018. Not only is immigration almost impossible because of strict caps, but the immigration system itself is complicated with onerous steps and over 22 classes of visas divided into about 185 visa types, each with very specific pathways into the U.S. 

Additionally, labor market restrictions stifle the ability of legal immigrants to contribute to the American economy. For example, many immigrant STEM graduates are prevented from opening their own businesses for years after graduation because of H1-B visa restrictions that only allow an immigrant to work for the employer that sponsors his or her visa. Refugees must wait a month before they are even allowed to work. And most state legislatures, including every New England state, restrict legal immigrants’ access to professional licenses.    

These restrictions threaten America’s competitiveness, and other countries are beginning to take advantage of our inability to properly harness immigrants’ potential. Canada has instituted a program to allow U.S. H1-B visa holders a three-year open work permit in Canada, and some Canadian companies have gone so far as to plaster billboards in Silicon Valley enticing highly educated immigrants who might be worried about their visa status.  

To take better advantage of the entrepreneurial bounty immigrants offer, US officials should take three major steps. First, caps on legal immigration need to be raised. Because immigrants of all education levels are highly entrepreneurial and innovative, every law-abiding immigrant who is denied entry equates to fewer potential businesses, new jobs, and life-improving inventions. 

Second, officials should streamline and simplify the US immigration process. Its complexity translates to wait times for residence permits that are measured in years, not months or days. This clogs the system and delays the contributions immigrants can make. 

Finally, federal officials should end unnecessary immigrant-related labor market restrictions. H1-B visa constraints delay the contributions of highly educated immigrants who want to start high-impact businesses, and work restrictions for other visa categories strip immigrants of their autonomy and ability to pursue gainful employment.

If federal officials are unwilling to act, there are steps state officials can take. Arkansas, Colorado, and New Mexico have already passed laws to remove immigrant-specific barriers to professional licenses. 

Massachusetts has used a more creative approach to side-step inefficient federal immigration policy. With the Global Entrepreneur in Residence Program, Massachusetts universities can sponsor cap-exempt H1-B visa petitions for graduates with advanced degrees who have founded companies. Other states should emulate the program.

While many were understandably alarmed by the lack of control experienced on our southern border, legal immigrants are not a burden. Rather, they are an incredibly positive force in our country and communities. It is time we act like it. 

Joshua Bedi is a senior fellow in economic opportunity at Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based public policy think tank, and author of a new report on the threat of outdated immigration policies to US economic competitiveness. He is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin – Superior.

The post Immigrants can make us rich, if we let them appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

TOM O’BRIEN, the developer who once worked inside Boston City Hall under Mayor Thomas Menino, is now weighing a campaign for the top job. 

Sources familiar with O’Brien’s thinking confirmed that he is considering a campaign against Mayor Michelle Wu, who is running for a second four-year term. The Boston Globe first reported on O’Brien’s potential bid this morning. 

If O’Brien enters the race, he would join a field that currently includes Josh Kraft, son of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. Josh Kraft, who has lived in Newton and Brookline, moved to Boston at the end of 2023 and last month launched a mayoral campaign, his first bid for public office. 

Kraft has pulled in nearly $400,000 for his effort, with money coming from family members and top business executives such as Herb Chambers, the car dealership magnate, and Jim Davis, the chairman of shoemaker New Balance. 

But his campaign has hit turbulence in recent days, first with a fundraising invitation sent out by two supporters and featuring a New York City skyline, as well as the city seal, which isn’t allowed on political material. A TV interview on Channel 5 that aired on Sunday showed Kraft stumbling in some of his answers, and further fueled behind-the-scenes calls from Wu opponents for O’Brien to consider wading in, according to political insiders watching the race.

The stumbles came as Wu was in the national spotlight, defending the city’s immigration policies in front of a hostile House Oversight Committee in Washington, D.C. 

“It is clear some developers are willing to do whatever it takes to buy this office,” a Wu campaign spokesperson said in a statement Monday afternoon. “It seems like Josh Kraft is not turning out to be what they expected and now they are shopping for a new option.” 

During her time in office, Wu has clashed with some executives in Boston’s real estate sector, who have balked at her push for more environmental regulations, bike lanes, and a proposal that shifts more of the property tax burden to commercial real estate owners to avoid a spike in residential tax bills this year. The proposal died in the state Senate after real estate interests lobbied against it. 

O’Brien has worked for the last 16 years at HYM Investment Group, where he is the CEO and a founding partner. The company has helped develop several massive real estate projects, including New Balance’s Boston Landing in Brighton and Suffolk Downs on the East Boston-Revere border. 

From 1993 to 1999, he worked at the Boston Redevelopment Authority under Mayor Menino as director and chief of staff. “Around that time, rumors began to swirl that Menino felt threatened by O’Brien, who was talented, driven, and perhaps worst of all, universally well liked, and in 1999 O’Brien was ousted from the BRA,” according to a 2020 profile in the alumni magazine of Suffolk University, where O’Brien received a law degree. 

O’Brien, who lives in a luxury residential building steps from City Hall and across from the One Congress tower his company was involved in building, did not respond to requests for comment. 

As Wu allies cheered her testimony in Washington, they and her campaign ramped up her reelection effort over the weekend. Five unions – representing health care workers, higher education employees and property service workers – became the latest labor groups to endorse Wu on Saturday. Union endorsements are coveted for the money and people on the ground they provide. 

At a separate event on Sunday, state Rep. Michael Moran, the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Massachusetts House after Speaker Ron Mariano, ripped into Kraft, caustically mocking him for recently leaving Moran a voicemail introducing himself. 

Moran, a House lawmaker for the last 20 years, told the crowd of Wu supporters that he found Kraft wanting to be mayor, after moving to the city in 2023, “offensive,” “arrogant,” and “insane.”  

“I mean, I would never in my wildest dreams think about doing something like that,” Moran said in an audio recording obtained by CommonWealth Beacon. “That I think so highly of myself that I’m going to have my dad buy me a condo in the North End and I’m going to run for mayor. Who does that? Nobody does that. Unless of course you have a father who’s Robert Kraft.” 

When asked about his recent move to Boston, Kraft has noted that he has worked in communities like Dorchester and Mattapan for 35 years.

“Mike Moran is a tireless leader in both the neighborhoods he serves and citywide, and a devoted public servant,” Kraft said in a statement. “I would be honored to work with him if I’m elected Mayor in November.”

The statement did not address O’Brien’s possible candidacy and the campaign declined comment. 

The mayoral race could draw in other candidates as well. North End restaurateur Jorge Mendoza Iturralde has previously said he is interested in a run for mayor, and perennial candidate for public office Althea Garrison is weighing a run. 

The post Mayor Wu could see a challenger from Boston’s business sector appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

Mayor Michelle Wu offered a forceful defense of the city’s decade-old Trust Act, a policy that limits Boston police cooperation with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, during a testy House Oversight hearing in Washington, DC, on Wednesday.

With federal dollars on the line and threats of prosecution bandied about by several members of Congress, here are five illustrative exchanges between the mayor – the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan – and House lawmakers.

1. “Would you turn this criminal over?”

2. “Mayor Wu, I’ll be showing up at your house tomorrow.”

3. “Do you believe the United States should have an immigration law?”

4. “Local leaders … know better than the White House does.”

5. “Are you out of your mind?”

The post ‘Are you out of your mind?’: Five moments from Mayor Michelle Wu’s immigration testimony appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

BOSTON MAYOR MICHELLE WU climbed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to face Republican lawmakers eager to make an example of blue state mayors and their immigration policies. Over the course of six and a half hours, the first-term mayor and daughter of immigrants dug in her heels and lauded her city as a welcoming place for migrants regardless of their legal status.  

“We are the safest major city in the country, because our gun laws are the strongest in the nation, because our officers have built relationships over decades, and because all of our residents trust that when they call 911 in the event of an emergency or to report a crime, help will come,” Wu told members of the House Oversight Committee, seated alongside mayors from Denver, Chicago, and New York City. “This federal administration’s approach is undermining that trust.” 

The mayoral panel was there to defend so-called “sanctuary city” polices, like the 2014 Boston Trust Act limiting local police cooperation with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement on civil immigration detainers. If immigration authorities have criminal warrants, local authorities will cooperate, the mayors noted, but they will not hold someone simply at a detainer request from ICE. 

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) said she would refer them to the US Department of Justice for investigation into their immigration policies, while US Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) accused the mayors of playing a “deft linguistic shell game” to conflate legal and illegal immigration. “No one is asking you to go round up criminal aliens,” he said. “We’re asking you to take people who are already in your custody and hand them over the legal federal law enforcement.” 

In one testy exchange, US Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona), told Wu to leave her doors unlocked because he would be “showing up” at her house, bag in hand and asking for a car and money, and demanding a “warm meal and a balanced diet.” 

“You obviously wouldn’t like this, because you don’t know me, right?” Gosar said, comparing that behavior to allowing immigrants to use city resources regardless of immigration status. “You’ve made the United States complicit and one of the largest purveyors of human trafficking in the world,” he added. 

Wu forcefully objected that the “false narrative is that immigrants in general are criminals, or that immigrants in general cause all sorts of danger and harm. That is actually what is undermining safety in our communities.  If you wanted to make us safe, pass gun reforms. Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans,” she said, a clip of which quickly spread on social media. “That is what will make our city safe.” 

Roughly 28 percent of Boston’s population is foreign-born, according to city statistics. Just under 30 percent of the city’s immigrants are Hispanic/Latino, another 25.5 percent are Black or African American, and 24.6 percent are Asian or Pacific Islander. Residents hail from China, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Vietnam, El Salvador and Colombia. 

The panel of mayors emphasized that their ICE detainer policies issues clearly align with their local priorities including lowering crime, deploying law enforcement funding and resources efficiently, and ensuring that the cities are welcoming to all residents. 

“Forty years of Chicago’s leaders have recognized that our policies toward civil immigration matters help to prevent and solve crimes,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said. “Put simply, any actions that amplify fears of deportations make Chicago more dangerous.” 

Fear of deportation can discourage witnesses from cooperating with police, he said as an example. Wu and several Democratic congresspeople noted that people are reportedly keeping children home from school and opting out of attending religious services for fear of immigration enforcement action. 

David Bier, director of immigration studies with the libertarian Cato Institute, said at the hearing that the Trump administration’s approach to immigration reform has been “lawless” and “chaotic.” The consequences stretch beyond those without legal residence, he said, having documented over 155 US citizens targeted by detainer requests.  

Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit crimes serious enough for incarceration at half the rate of US-born Americans, Bier said, and there is a correlation between more immigration and lower homicide rates that holds true across the US. 

“An indiscriminate mass deportation agenda is a far greater threat to our safety than any city policy,” Bier said. Gesturing with an armful of papers, he said “a mountain of imperial research show that reasonable restrictions on ICE cooperation do not increase crime rates, and that immigrants lower crime rates.” 

Wu entered the D.C. arena arguably in a stronger position than her fellow mayors. Recent polling shows some 80 percent of voters in Chicago, where Wu grew up, have an unfavorable view of Johnson and just over half of New York City voters have an unfavorable view of Mayor Eric Adams, who is facing corruption charges that the Trump administration has ordered dropped, citing his pledge to cooperate with federal immigration goals, with the option to bring them again at any time. 

By contrast, a February poll from Emerson College found that 57 percent of Boston voters have a favorable view of Wu and just over half of voters approve of the Boston Trust Act, which bars Boston police from turning people over to federal authorities solely for immigration violations. 

Wu’s mayoral opponent, Josh Kraft, indicated there is little daylight between the two of them on the issue. Asked by reporters what he would say if he appeared in front of the Oversight Committee, he said he’d be “telling them all about the great things in Boston, why I’m here. Thirty-five years I’ve worked in these communities, I’ve met all kinds of people, many of them immigrants, making our city stronger and prouder for everyone.” 

While other mayors took different hits over millions or billions of dollars being spent on care for undocumented residents, Wu noted that Boston does not ask about immigration status when providing city services and many community organizations also serve all Boston residents. 

The stance is costing taxpayer dollars, Cloud argued. Some $80 million of FEMA funding went to New York City to house migrants, $38 million in Denver, $32 million in Chicago, and $29 million in Boston, according to Cloud. 

As US Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Florida) said the mayor “does not care how much of your resources she has spent on people who are not citizens, Wu snapped back.  

“The City of Boston is sick of having people outside Boston telling us what we need,” she said. 

And even fellow politicians in Boston who have disagreed with Wu in the past, or are actively trying to displace her as mayor, chose to support her as she faced the Republican-controlled committee. 

Immigration advocacy groups and local officials led a rally outside Boston City Hall, attended by several hundred people, and a small crowd of Trump supporters who waved “Make America Great Again” banners. 

The City Hall rally featured Councilor Julia Mejia, who has clashed with Wu on policies like returning to an elected school committee – Wu backs keeping mayoral control of the body – but urged the crowd to support the mayor. “No matter how they spin it,” Boston remains a safe US city, Mejia said. 

“We all know what’s happening in DC is a Republican circus that has nothing to do with substance, nothing to do with anything that’s important to any of us,” said Kraft, who has voted in Democratic and Republican primaries, and registered as a Democrat when he moved to Boston from Brookline at the end of 2023. “It’s just performance.” 

Suzanne Lee, a longtime activist on immigration and housing issues, also attended the rally, noting that she is a first-generation immigrant whose family came to America in the 1890s.  

“This whole attack on immigrants, we know it’s a diversion from the real problem the country is facing that needs all of our brainpower to figure out and meet that challenge, and not waste time and deal with nonsense,” she said. “The housing shortage is manmade, it’s created by policy so let’s focus on that. It’s no longer just the poor, it’s the working folks, the middle class cannot afford to have a place for their family. Focus on that.” 

The post Wu fends off GOP critiques of Boston immigration policies appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

IMAGINE WAKING UP one day to find that the life you have built over many years is suddenly in jeopardy. This reality now affects approximately 900,000 people living in the US with humanitarian immigration protection known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The Trump administration has begun rescinding TPS—starting with Venezuelans and Haitians—stripping them of their humanitarian status and rendering them vulnerable to deportation. Uprooting lives, the administration is unnecessarily and recklessly tearing at the fabric of entire communities that are here legally and playing by the rules.

In response, on Monday, Lawyers for Civil Rights filed the first lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of TPS for both Venezuelans and Haitians. The federal court case was filed in Boston, home to the country’s third-largest Haitian-American population.

TPS protects about 500,000 Haitians and 300,000 Venezuelans. With TPS, they have rights and responsibilities: They can live safely and work legally in the US, but they must pay taxes, follow the rules, and remain law-abiding. Getting into criminal trouble disqualifies them under strict TPS conditions. They don’t threaten public safety because they are vetted by the federal government each time they renew their humanitarian status.

Unlike undocumented people who are pushed into the shadows to avoid detection and deportation, TPS recipients are fully known to immigration officials. Collectively, they are model community members. 

TPS recipients reside in blue and red states across the US, with significant populations in Florida, Texas, New York, California, and New Jersey. In Massachusetts, over 17,000 people live and work with TPS, including at least 10,000 Salvadorans, 4,500 Haitians, and 1,300 Hondurans. TPS recipients are essential workers, small business owners, homeowners, and community members who help drive the economy. 

Deporting nearly 900,000 TPS holders would be economically catastrophic. It would exacerbate labor shortages in key industries like health care, construction, and food services, driving up already high costs. The loss of workers would destabilize businesses and hurt local economies, making services and products even scarcer.  

At least 380,000 TPS recipients are in the workforce, filling jobs in industries with chronic labor shortages. For example, more than 100,000 work in food services and accommodations, helping to keep restaurants, hotels, and other businesses running. About 50,000 work in health care, with TPS recipients well-represented in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health aide providers—all critical services, especially for the aging baby boomers. Another 50,000 play other vital roles in service industries.

Altogether, the economic contributions of TPS workers are an astounding $31 billion annually. TPS rescission will deprive the economy of this massive and much-needed boost. It will also burden taxpayers with the unnecessary costs of deporting hundreds of thousands of people who are already here lawfully and working for America. 

Over the years, with the stability afforded by humanitarian protection, many TPS holders have been able to save and invest. TPS entrepreneurs have launched their own businesses and created work opportunities for other Americans. People with TPS have started shops and restaurants, injecting new life into Main Street. This fuels the revitalization of neighborhoods that would otherwise struggle with stagnation. The elimination of TPS would harm everyone in these communities.    

TPS recipients are also taxpayers. In 2021, they paid nearly $1.3 billion in taxes, helping to sustain and support federal programs. They even pay taxes to support services they typically can’t access because many federal public assistance programs are reserved for US citizens. Yet, even after decades of living and working here, TPS recipients have no pathway to American citizenship. They are economically valuable and immensely productive, but the Trump administration has unfairly painted them as an undesirable nuisance.

In the past, Republican and Democrat administrations—from Bush to Biden—have recognized the importance of TPS by renewing it in response to crises abroad. Ending TPS now exacerbates the conditions that triggered humanitarian protection in the first place. If TPS is revoked, TPS recipients will be deported to indisputably unstable countries.

TPS-designated countries like Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Venezuela, and Ukraine are already grappling with conflict, natural disasters, and other hardships. They cannot guarantee the safety of deported TPS recipients. None of these countries have the infrastructure or capacity to safely or sustainably absorb thousands of people. By destabilizing vulnerable countries, TPS rescission will backfire, leading to even more migrants in the long run.  

The unsafe conditions that deported TPS recipients would face underscore that the Trump administration’s actions are discriminatory and arbitrary. Terminating TPS raises serious legal and practical concerns: How can the government justify rescission, especially when conditions abroad have, in many cases, worsened?  

Ending TPS is also problematic from a policy perspective because it’s the only immigration program that provides relief for people affected by climate change, including those fleeing storms and other environmental disasters. Many countries designated for TPS—like Haiti—have experienced hurricanes and other extreme weather events. As climate change intensifies, ending TPS would be devastating.  

During the first Trump administration, organizations like Lawyers for Civil Rights sued to prevent TPS termination, arguing that rescission was motivated by discriminatory animus. Once again, legal action is needed to stop the latest attempts to revoke TPS. In times like these, the availability of free legal support from organizations like Lawyers for Civil Rights is among the most critical interventions to protect families and communities.  

Make no mistake—this is a manufactured crisis, and the upheaval effectively condemns TPS recipients to undocumented status. This cannot be allowed to happen. Employers and business leaders must speak out against ending TPS. Congress must also take action to create a permanent solution for TPS holders, ensuring they are no longer in jeopardy. We must stand with our neighbors and co-workers who depend on TPS. This fight isn’t just about TPS—it’s about the rule of law, the economic fallout, and fairness.  

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal is executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights.

The post Why we sued to protect Temporary Protected Status immigrants appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE sent a clear message pressuring state and local authorities by filing charges against New York officials for allegedly violating federal law by refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement.

Days earlier, the Justice Department sued Chicago and Illinois over that state’s “sanctuary” law. Now federal officials are going after New York for its “Green Light Law”—which, much like our Commonwealth’s Work and Family Mobility Act, allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

The Justice Department announced: “We sued Illinois, and New York didn’t listen, so you’re next,” warning that any other state not complying with federal law should expect to be targeted next.  

The goal is clear: to intimidate local officials, manufacture a public spectacle that terrorizes immigrants, and rally political supporters who mistakenly conflate immigration enforcement with public safety.

But the Justice Department’s attacks are misplaced and unwarranted. Federal agencies already have access to criminal records, for example, through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Nothing in federal law requires state or local officials to share additional information—let alone actively assist with federal prerogatives like immigration enforcement. In fact, courts have consistently ruled that states and localities don’t have to carry out the federal government’s bidding. Pretending otherwise violates the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment, which reserves unenumerated powers to the states.

Beyond the constitutional argument, there are also practical and financial reasons for keeping local and state authorities out of immigration enforcement. It would be an unfunded mandate, draining local tax dollars for federal priorities. Immigration enforcement is highly specialized, technical, and complex, increasing the risk of wrongful arrests—entanglement burdens localities and taxpayers with significant responsibility and costly liability.

Immigration enforcement should remain the responsibility of federal agencies, which are already well-trained and well-funded for the task. ICE receives $9 billion annually, while US Customs and Border Protection gets an additional $17 billion. With such massive federal investments in immigration enforcement, scarce local and state resources should remain focused on community needs. Local officials and police should stay in their lane, prioritizing community concerns. 

To be sure, Massachusetts is not immune from federal attacks. Following the charges against Chicago and New York, jurisdictions that refuse to fall in line with the mass deportation agenda are being targeted through funding threats and escalating enforcement actions.

We have already seen ICE agents staking out Market Basket in Chelsea. We have watched them bring news crews along to broadcast aggressive arrests in our neighborhoods. This is an alarming and calculated attempt to instill fear and pressure local officials into retreating from lawful and longstanding immigrant-friendly policies that promote public safety.

Sanctuary policies foster trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, ensuring that victims and witnesses of crime feel safe calling 911 and cooperating with police. Without them, fear drives people deeper into the shadows, making it harder to investigate and solve crimes. For example, if an immigrant is the only witness to a hit-and-run, why would they come forward if local police are enmeshed with ICE? If victims and witnesses are afraid to interact with police, the entire community becomes less safe. 

Many cities and towns with immigrant-friendly policies take pride in these protections and actively defend them. Other localities should follow their lead to enhance public safety. Now, more than ever, we must protect and expand sanctuary policies. Cities and towns that value trust between police and communities must stand firm. Those without sanctuary protections should implement them.

We must also counter the rampant misinformation campaign and push back against false and dangerous narratives. No one is hiding immigrants from ICE. No one is protecting criminals. Sanctuary policies do not prevent federal immigration enforcement; they simply keep local law enforcement focused on public safety rather than acting as ICE agents. 

Local officials, community leaders, and residents must actively challenge the fearmongering about sanctuary policies. Facts matter: sanctuary policies do not shield serious criminals, nor do they violate federal law. They create stronger and safer communities.

This is not just about New York or Illinois. It is about every community that values safety, trust, and human dignity. The fight is here, and Massachusetts must be ready.

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal is executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights.

The post We must push back on attack on sanctuary cities appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE $425 MILLION emergency shelter system bill that the House will vote on Thursday features temporary reforms including “stricter eligibility requirements, along with increased security measures” that House Speaker Ronald Mariano said could ensure the program can endure financially in the long term.

The House Ways and Means Committee was polling its latest draft of Gov. Maura Healey’s mid-year spending proposal Wednesday morning, teeing it up for debate in a Thursday formal session. Mariano’s office said the committee bill adopts the administration’s recommendation around so-called presumptive eligibility by allowing the state to verify eligibility for shelter benefits during the application process by “requiring applicants to prove Massachusetts residency and an intent to stay in Massachusetts by providing certain documentation.”

It also gives the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) the authority to “require benefits to be provided only to families who are residents of Massachusetts and who are United States citizens; persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or otherwise permanently residing under the color of law in the US,” the speaker’s office said, but also requires that temporary respite sites be made available to non-eligible families for up to 30 days upon arrival in Massachusetts.

There are also measures to reduce the maximum length in an emergency assistance (EA) shelter from nine to six consecutive months, and to remove the availability of two 90-day extensions for certain situations. EOHLC would be allowed, under the House bill, to deem families that have income exceeding 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level for three consecutive months to be no longer eligible for shelter benefits.

“Over the past several years, as the population of the emergency shelter system has grown, the House has attempted to uphold the Commonwealth’s right to shelter law while also being mindful of the long-term fiscal sustainability of the program,” House Ways and Means chairman Aaron Michlewitz said. “The reforms contained in this proposal will ensure that right to shelter is maintained by further capping the length of stay and verifying eligibility, while also enacting stricter background checks on those who enter the shelter system to better protect the families who need these services the most.”

On the safety front, the House bill proposes to require that each individual adult applicant or beneficiary in the EA system disclose all prior criminal convictions in Massachusetts and any other jurisdiction, except for convictions that are sealed or were expunged. It also would require CORI background checks for each individual adult applicant or beneficiary prior to shelter placement.

The last line of the House bill would impose a rigid cap on the number of families served by the EA system at 4,000 for 2026. There were 6,012 families enrolled in the EA system as of January 30.

Ways and Means Committee members were given until 10:45 a.m. to vote on Michlewitz’s recommendation to report the draft favorably. The House is expected to debate it in a formal session Thursday.

The post House Dems restrict shelter eligibility in $425 million bill appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

ONE OF President Trump’s first official acts was to express contempt for the Constitution. 

Within hours of his inauguration, he signed an executive order robbing many children of immigrants of their sacred Constitutional right to birthright citizenship. 

About 69,000 babies are born in Massachusetts every year, and approximately a third of children under 18 have at least one foreign-born parent. Given the executive order’s sweeping scope, thousands of children born in Massachusetts could be denied US citizenship. 

Recognizing the immediate threat to these children and their families, Lawyers for Civil Rights immediately filed suit to block the executive order.

The scope and scale of the executive order is alarming. Federal action could impact the sons and daughters of people with temporary protected status (TPS), many of whom have lived, studied, and worked here for years, some as essential workers and first responders. The executive order also targets the US-born children of asylum-seekers who cannot safely return to their home countries, putting them at risk of statelessness. Additionally, it creates uncertainty for the US-born children of foreign-born doctors, scientists, and engineers in key industries and at major tech companies—individuals who have long contributed to economic innovation and growth.

Without a doubt, the executive order is illegal. It has already been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Seattle, who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” A preliminary injunction hearing is also scheduled on February 7 in federal court in Boston. 

Trump cannot unilaterally change the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment is crystal clear on birthright citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

These powerful words, securing the citizenship of all Americans regardless of their race or background, are also enshrined and codified in federal law and have been reaffirmed by over a century of legal precedent.  

Yet Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to violate these children’s fundamental benefits, entitlements, and protections. For example, targeted citizens will be denied US passports and Social Security numbers. This is a breach of American law, tradition, custom, and practice.

To be clear, the harm that would be inflicted is immense. As the US Supreme Court has ruled, depriving someone of their citizenship “is a form of punishment more primitive than torture,” amounting to “the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society.”

The targeted citizens would be deprived of the bundle of rights that comes with American citizenship. They would be forced to live with the fear, uncertainty, shame, and indignities that come with de-Americanization, deportation, and the potential banishment from their homeland. Many would be rendered stateless, particularly the children of war-torn countries, where registering a birth abroad would be nearly impossible. Survivors of persecution are particularly vulnerable. They would be risking their lives by approaching government officials who were responsible for their torture and exile.

The US does not have a centralized national database of citizens, so there’s no comprehensive list of American citizens, making it impossible to implement the executive order without risking the wrongful deportation of our children and neighbors. 

The implications extend far beyond children: Adults who have lived in the US for decades—who have built careers, raised families and contributed to American society—could suddenly find their citizenship questioned. This sets a dangerous precedent for stripping rights from other groups in the future. 

The stakes are too high to remain silent. We cannot allow this injustice. 

Within hours of the executive order being signed, Lawyers for Civil Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston to block the implementation of unlawful federal action. We are representing the Brazilian Worker Center and La Colaborativa, two community organizations whose members are affected by the executive order.

Our lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the Constitution and illegally creates second-class citizens. We are not alone in our fight. Attorneys general from nearly two dozen states have also challenged the executive order. 

We fought many battles like this during the first Trump administration, and we expect to fight many more still. The barrage of lawlessness from the federal government will be relentless. Now more than ever, it is up to every one of us to push back, defend the rule of law and the Constitution, and support our fellow Americans.

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal is executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights.

The post Trump’s reckless attack on birthright citizenship appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MASSACHUSETTS HIGHER EDUCATION commissioner Noe Ortega has a delicate balancing act ahead: maintaining institutional values amid growing national skepticism of academia’s role in the development of young minds while confronting stark financial realities that threaten the system’s sustainability.

“I still think that many people believe that it’s only for the smart and for the wealthy,” Ortega said on The Codcast. “We’ve got to do a better job of making sure people understand that everyone has something to contribute to the institution. It’s not about what you’ve done to earn your way in there. It’s about what kind of experience and lived experience you have that can contribute to the knowledge and learning.”

The Massachusetts public higher education system – community colleges and state universities excluding the UMass schools – enrolled 151,878 undergraduate and graduate students in 2024, according to state data. That was a slight tick up after constant declines for roughly the past decade. (More than 200,000 enrolled in 2015.) Meanwhile, at the five-campus University of Massachusetts system, enrollment was basically flat, up by just 0.1 percent in 2024 to about 73,000 students.

Some of those gains are more complicated than they may seem. While the Legislature and the Healey administration championed expanding community college access by making the system free for all students who apply for federal financial aid, the surging enrollment in community colleges is straining resources and packing classes. 

Public school facilities are creaking under deferred maintenance, which Gov. Maura Healey’s new proposed budget sets aside $2.5 billion to address, and Ortega notes the schools are trying to “do more with less” including relying more heavily on adjunct faculty.

Other recent initiatives – and the clear mission of the state’s public education system stating “racial equity is the top policy and performance priority” – could face a headlong collision with President Donald Trump’s current anti-diversity and immigration actions. State leaders in 2023 extended public in-state tuition rates to all eligible students regardless of their immigration status.

Rules targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives were among the wave of executive orders signed in the first week of the new administration. 

Roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Trump said in announcing the orders, “critical and influential institutions of American society, including … institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences.”

The order directed the federal Department of Education, which Trump said he would like to abolish during the campaign, to terminate its DEI programs and discourage such programs in private institutions.

For Ortega, the terminology is a trap. The state’s public school system, unlike the initially male-only and clergy-focused Harvard or agricultural trade schools, was an effort to educate populations being left out of traditional higher educational options, he said.

“We’ve all of a sudden forgotten that institutions at their very premise are places that create belonging for folks,” Ortega said. “That’s what results in success. And that’s how we’re kind of approaching this conversation. If we’re hung up on nomenclature that over time has been appropriated by the media in a number of ways,” referring to DEI, “then let’s shift the focus and start thinking about the mission of our institutions in terms of places that people belong.”

The state is also in the position of protecting its tuition equity program, which is a policy used by Massachusetts and about 10 other states including Ortega’s home state of Texas that allows in-state tuition rates regardless of immigration status. In the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy document, laying out plans for a potential second Trump administration, it suggests denying federal loan access to students “at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.”

All of the state’s public institutions “remain fully committed, as does the department and this administration,” Ortega said of the program. “Now we find ourselves in an environment where we have to protect it.” 

That involves both ensuring the continued funding for the in-state tuition guarantee, but also efforts to head off the “chilling effect” that Ortega says is likely when the federal government targets particular diversity policies. When the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admission policies, Ortega said the state began explainer campaigns for schools and students alike on what kinds of policies would run afoul of the new rules and which could work. Similarly, he expects expanded “know your rights” efforts around immigration status and schooling. 

Doug Howgate, president at the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, describes the Healey administration’s approach to the Trump administration’s “target on higher education” as one of “cautious pragmatism.” 

“Higher education, both public and private, is uniquely integral to the Massachusetts economy,” he said, “and the reality is that our state is more diverse now than it has ever been before. As we continue to grow the labor force and economy, it’s going to be more diverse, so higher ed needs to connect with communities it has historically not connected with well.”

At the same time, he noted, the state can’t ignore the national context or federal policy changes. Given higher education’s central importance to Massachusetts competitiveness, he said, “we should all be on the same page doing everything we can to protect and support that sector.”

That will require innovation and a clear focus on mission, Ortega said. Changing school admissions policies to focus on need rather than race, aiming to hire more people of color in staff positions, and pursuing active outreach and recruitment to certain schools and students can all help diversify student bodies. 

People who have benefited from higher education, like the president and vice president, can be among the loudest to downplay its role as an essential resource, Ortega said. When Trump and J.D. Vance question who should get help to attend college, Ortega said, they “are often talking about somebody other than themselves, which in many ways are the people who we’re trying to serve at our public institutions: historically underrepresented individuals who have not had an opportunity to go there. And it bothers me when I hear people raise that question, because in many ways they’re talking about a particular segment of the population – often those people who look like me.”

For more from Commissioner Ortega – on maintaining institutional values, growing reliance on adjunct faculty, and what higher educational trends keep him up at night – listen to The Codcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

The post With DEI in the cross-hairs, higher ed cannot be reserved ‘for the smart and for the wealthy’ appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.