Massachusetts agencies would face limits on helping enforce immigration laws

State police, city and town police, sheriffs, and state corrections staff would be barred from performing immigration officers’ duties. The ban would apply whether staff act under formal agreements or informal arrangements. Corrections agencies could still make federal agreements to house immigration detainees in a house of correction, with daily federal payments for each person held. Conflicting agreements would become void upon passage. Massachusetts public agencies that were parties to those agreements would have 90 days to notify the other parties.

Covered agency staff would generally be barred from asking about immigration status. Immigration interviews with people in their custody would require signed, informed consent. Covered agencies would include nonfederal police, courts, prosecutors, and other agencies that enforce laws or hold people. Checks for eligibility for government programs would not count as immigration enforcement. State or federal law could require immigration status questions. Judges and magistrates could ask questions needed to decide matters before them. Consent forms would explain the interview’s purpose and possible use of answers against the person. People could refuse the interview or documents, or request a lawyer at their own expense. Agencies would make their best efforts to provide understandable forms and interpretation. The questioning ban and consent requirement would not cover people held under federal immigration housing agreements. At booking, they would receive notice that they could seek a lawyer at their own expense, refuse to speak, speak only with a lawyer present, or refuse documents. Records about these interviews would be public, with personal identifying information withheld. The Massachusetts attorney general would prepare the consent form.

Covered agencies generally could not initiate release notices to the United States Department of Homeland Security. They would give people in custody copies of federal notification requests. The restriction would cover agency-initiated notices about pending or imminent release from state, local, or county custody. The notice restriction would not apply when someone finishes a sentence for a criminal conviction. Agencies could still exchange citizenship or immigration status information with local, state, or federal agencies. People would also receive copies of other documents that the Department of Homeland Security sent the agency about their case.

Covered agencies would train staff on the questioning, interview, and release-notice rules and investigate complaints about violations. Individuals could file complaints with the agency involved about violations of these rules. Agency heads would send investigation findings to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Reports of confirmed violations would describe corrective actions taken and any sanctions imposed. Findings would be public, with personal identifying information withheld. Agencies would have 12 months from passage to add guidance to their introductory and ongoing staff training.