|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Lawmakers in charge of hashing out the details of highly anticipated legislation aimed at protecting immigrants from federal enforcement actions say they have come to an agreement.
“As we watch what is happening around our nation, it is critical in this time that we defend and protect the residents of the Commonwealth,” Sen. Cindy Friedman and Rep. Dan Cahill said in a statement. “The conference committee will file this report later today, and it is our hope that the House and Senate will vote to send this bill to the Governor’s desk later this week.”
Cahill and Friedman are co-chairs of the six-person conference committee in charge of settling differences between the House and Senate versions (H 5316 / S 3086). The House passed its bill on a 134-21 vote in March and the Senate voted 37-3 to pass its version in May. The chief negotiators said the accord features protections that are “among the strongest in the nation.”
The accord appears poised for final passage this week while other major priorities, such as public higher education infrastructure upgrades, data privacy protections and economic development bills, remain works in progress despite support from both branches.
Shortly after 11:40 a.m., House clerks told the News Service they had not received the conference committee report yet.
Protecting immigrants has emerged as a priority for lawmakers amid heightened immigration law enforcement efforts spearheaded by President Donald Trump. The Black and Latino Caucus has advocated for swift passage of the legislation, urging lawmakers in May to agree on a law before the start of the FIFA World Cup, which ended on July 19.
Conferees had several differences to sort out to get a final bill to Gov. Maura Healey. The most noticeable is where civil arrests may not take place. The House bill protects courthouses and includes language granting the governor authority to ban or limit civil immigration enforcement in nonpublic areas of “any state entity.” The Senate bill added four new categories of protected spaces with policy, notice and parent-notification requirements for schools and child care programs.
The House also left a slim pathway for criminal-purpose 287(g) agreements that the Senate did not include. Under the House version, law enforcement agencies can petition the state for authorization to enter into a time-limited agreement with ICE that couldn’t be automatically renewed. The Senate bans all new, expanded or renewed 287(g) agreements. Both versions allow the Department of Correction to keep its existing agreement.
Cahill and Friedman said the accord “offers avenues and delivers tools for the Commonwealth to provide protections for our residents— specifically at sensitive locations including courthouses, schools, health care facilities, and childcare centers.”
They added: “The language also affirms and expands upon a Supreme Judicial Court opinion clarifying that there is no role for our state and local law enforcement in federal civil immigration enforcement. The bill would also provide victims of unjustified actions by federal immigration agents to sue in state court when their constitutional rights have been violated.”
The other conference committee members are Reps. Andy Vargas and Marcus Vaughn and Sens. Pavel Payano and Ryan Fattman.
The announcement of an agreement came moments after Healey said she wanted to see the bill on her desk this week during an appearance on GBH’s “Boston Public Radio.”
“There’s a lot of things that I want to see come to my desk,” Healey said when asked what she wants on her desk by July 31. “I think that you know, to me, top of mind is getting that PROTECT Act.”
Said Friedman and Cahill: “We believe that all Massachusetts residents deserve equal protection under both the United States Constitution and Massachusetts Constitution, regardless of where they were born or their color, creed, or immigration status. As state legislators, we swore an oath to protect and defend these Constitutions and therefore must do everything we can to ensure our constituents have access to the rights enshrined within them.”
