After a one-week delay to address concerns of the Cambridge police officers union, councillors approved an order asking the city manager to strengthen the a welcoming-community ordinance forbidding police to help federal agents enforce immigration law. If the city administration does propose a change in the ordinance, it may not have all the elements the councillors want, the discussion at Monday’s council meeting indicated.
Councillor Paul Toner, who had postponed a vote on the measure from June 2 until Monday at the request of the union, said officers were concerned about a clause in the proposed change requiring city police to ask federal agents at immigration enforcement actions for their names and badge numbers. Officers worried that such a request would put them in “confrontation” with the agents, Toner said.
“The Cambridge police have been living under the rules of our sanctuary-city and welcoming-community ordinance,” Toner said. “They’ve been living up to those values, but they did have some concerns, especially in light of the situations we’ve seen across the country, and want to avoid having something escalated between them and federal agents.”
City solicitor Megan Bayer told councillors that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were not required to identify themselves, though “they are legally obligated when it is safe and practicable to do so to say they are an Ice agent or a federal immigration enforcement agent conducting immigration enforcement operation.”
And city manager Yi-An Huang signaled a compromise. He said that as city officials work to fashion any changes, “the question will be, how we … understand the importance of the welcoming-community ordinance and the guidance that we’re providing for local law enforcement, the importance for them not to be involved in civil immigration activities, but also the importance for us not to put them in a position where our local ordinances are in conflict with either federal regulations or or their broader obligations.”
Huang also said Ice generally informs local police “of their presence.”
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, lead sponsor of the order seeking an amendment, reiterated the need for police to ask Ice agents for identification. “We keep talking about Ice doing these abductions, when in reality, we have no idea who is doing a lot of these abductions,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said. “We don’t know it was Ice. We don’t know if it’s a different federal department. We don’t know if it was federal contractors, but the least we can expect and ask our city employees to help identify these folks, if they are actually Ice agents and and document that info of who is doing these abductions – because they have faces covered. They have no identification.”
There was no controversy about the rest of the proposed amendment, which makes it clear that city police may act to maintain “public safety” during an immigration enforcement action but can’t “assist or facilitate the work of Ice, especially given that those actions may be unlawful.” The current ordinance forbids cooperation with Ice but has an exception allowing police to respond “to a request to assist with support services deemed necessary to ensure officer safety or to prevent a breach of the peace during a federal operation, such as requests to establish traffic perimeters, control traffic or provide police escort.”
The discussion played out as National Guard members activated by president Donald Trump – despite the objection of California governor Gavin Newsom – helped Ice agents battle protesters in Los Angeles trying to block deportations. Los Angeles police also participated and arrested protesters.
Vice mayor Marc McGovern alluded to the Los Angeles situation when he asked to add his name to the list of three original sponsors of the policy order: Sobrinho-Wheeler and councillors Sumbul Siddiqui and Patty Nolan. “I’m sick over what we’re seeing in L.A. and what’s happening and where things are going,” McGovern said. “It’s really disgusting that this administration is doing this. So I won’t belabor it, but I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.”
Councillor Ayesha M. Wilson also asked to join the list of sponsors.
Nolan continued the emotional tone of the discussion, saying that “as I understand from the police, if someone comes up, we can’t even legally ask for a warrant, because they’re in the public way. And it is really scary. What this does is at least try to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we’re documenting and that our officers are there to provide safety for our residents.”
“We’re all standing here. I know we’re kind of shaking,” Nolan said. “We talk about a lot of other issues on this floor, but this is really something that goes to the core of people feeling safe in the city.”
Mayor E. Denise Simmons registered the lone objection to the order, voting “present.” Simmons agreed that Cambridge “must indeed be vocal and forceful in pushing back against federal immigration enforcement,” but said she worried about requiring Cambridge police to document Ice actions and obtain identification information.
She said she had seen “some of the aggressive behavior in other cities” and cited the situation in Los Angeles. “I just worry about setting not only our citizens but our police officers in harm’s way,” Simmons said.
Bayer said city officials will work with police department leadership and the union to come up with a proposal in response to the council’s request. Huang said the city administration is “very happy for the council to pass this and we can work together on on appropriate language.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Denise Simmons objecting to holding police accountable? Is it a day that ends in “y” already?
By not identifying themselves to local law enforcement, ICE and Homeland security officers are risking being seen by property owners as Trespassers and since they are armed, to be potentially a threat. A black military looking uniform could be easily obtained via other means
In Massachusetts, the “Castle Doctrine” grants residents the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend themselves and others in their home against an unlawful intruder without a duty to retreat. This means you are not required to try to escape or avoid confrontation if you reasonably believe the intruder poses an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death.
This could lead to unwanted escalation easily. ICE etc do not seem to have a firm grasp on the laws in the country never mind the states they are acting in.
Dear Mayor E. Denise Simmons, was Rumeysa Ozturk showing aggressive behavior in our city before being abducted by masked men? ICE and DHS admit that most people abducted and sent to foreign prisons (these actions are NOT deportations) have almost no previous crimes (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/migrants-in-u-s-legally-and-with-no-criminal-history-caught-up-in-trump-crackdown). ICE and DHS refuse to follow court orders (https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/unquestionably-in-violation-judge-says-us-government-didnt-follow-court-order-on-deportations/). Congratulations, Mayor, the violence and lawlessness is already here. Some people take a stand. Others shy away from reality and are simply present. July 4th is approaching, and can our elected officials really look at the flag and say “liberty and justice for all”?
It seems ironic that Paul Toner is so often an advocate for the CPD given his connection to a criminal prostitution ring. Is it possible his criminal behavior compromises his objectivity?
The police should arrest anyone wearing a mask who is interfering with anyone’s civil rights pas Mass law, chapter 238, section 34.
Section 34. Whoever disguises himself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law, or to intimidate, hinder or interrupt an officer or other person in the lawful performance of his duty, or in the exercise of his rights under the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, whether such intent is effected or not, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year and may if imprisoned also be bound to good behavior for one year after the expiration of such imprisonment.
https://site-7dogf22bz.godaddysites.com/
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268/Section34
While I can appreciate that officers don’t want to antagonize ICE agents, as a practical matter ICE does need to alert CPD to raids in reasonably precise terms– ‘a team of 10 agents will be working in East Cambridge from 10 am to noon tomorrow.’
Then I’d hope CPD sends officers to observe and keep residents calm, although not assist.
Otherwise, if I see a bunch of guys claiming to be ICE agents and waiving guns around, I’m calling the cops to say a bunch of gunmen are running around in the street. We have no idea who these men are. I don’t trust someone with an assault rifle and ‘ICE’ stamped on his t-shirt further than I can throw him. That guy is going to get people killed, possibly including himself.
Good on Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler for making the point that without a duty to identify themselves, there is no way to verify that someone claiming to be ICE actually is. If an armed man in a mask with no identification tells me to get into a car, I’m just supposed to comply? That’s insane. It’s an amazing gift to anyone who’d like to do a little kidnapping as a private project, to stalkers, and to domestic abusers who may want to hire someone to do that. Good on the original co-sponsors and those adding themselves as cosponsors too.
Councilor Toner’s quote blows me away. Does he not realize the alternative is conflict between ordinary people and ICE? Or is he just fine with the onus being instead on a random school teacher or whomever to determine whether they’re being illegally kidnapped in order to spare police officers from “conflict?”
I’m not a police abolitionist, but if it’s really too much to expect cops to handle “conflict” professionally then I do wonder what their job is.
*confrontation, not conflict – apologies for the misquote. Though I think that word makes the quote worse, not better.