In March alone, 13 members of our Berkshire community were taken into ICE custody.
They are not statistics to us. They are workers, parents, parishioners, students’ family members — people woven into the daily life of our towns.
When that many detentions happen in a small region in a short period of time, the public deserves clarity. How are cases identified? What role do local systems play? What oversight exists?
We appreciate that Governor Healey has taken steps to limit new 287(g) agreements. Our question is simple: if Massachusetts has raised the standard for any new agreement, shouldn’t we apply that same standard to the one that already exists? We are asking for transparency, data, and a formal review process.
Western Massachusetts communities care deeply about public safety. We also care about civil liberties and due process. Those values aren’t in tension—transparency strengthens both.
“If the agreement is only being used in very serious cases, then a transparent review should confirm that. We’re not asking for rhetoric — we’re asking for data and oversight.”
Good policy survives scrutiny.
In just two days, more than 450 Berkshire residents signed on—clergy, nonprofit leaders, educators, clinicians, business owners, and neighbors. That breadth reflects a shared concern across our region: accountability, due process, and protecting community trust.
We are requesting a meeting with the Governor’s Western Massachusetts staff, a clear review timeline, and public reporting on how the agreement is being used.
Why ending 287(g) protects communities
It disrupts the jail-to-detention pipeline.
287(g) can turn local and state custody into a feeder system for ICE—so a jail release becomes a direct handoff into immigration detention, even when the underlying case is minor or unresolved. Ending 287(g) breaks that automatic chain and reduces the number of people funneled from local custody into detention.
It strengthens community trust and public safety.
When local systems are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, people are less likely to report crimes or seek help—especially survivors and witnesses—because of fear of immigration consequences. Clear separation improves trust, increases cooperation, and makes communities safer.
It slows dragnet-style enforcement by reducing automatic screening and data-sharing.
287(g) embeds immigration screening and information-sharing into routine booking processes. Without that automatic coordination, ICE must rely more on its own investigative authority rather than systematic jail screening—reinforcing due process boundaries and reducing broad, indiscriminate enforcement.