Plymouth County officials clashed with federal immigration agents over unannounced operations in their community, exposing the growing divide between sanctuary jurisdictions and national immigration enforcement efforts.
At a Glance
- ICE conducted operations in Plymouth County, Massachusetts without notifying local authorities
- A resident confronted and filmed ICE officers during their enforcement operation
- Plymouth officials claim ICE’s lack of communication puts residents and law enforcement at risk
- Plymouth is designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction, complicating its relationship with federal immigration enforcement
- ICE recently arrested a previously deported child rapist during Massachusetts operations
Local Resident Confronts Federal Agents
A confrontation between a Plymouth resident and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers has highlighted tensions in Massachusetts county. Lori Fitzpatrick filmed ICE agents during a targeted enforcement operation, questioning their presence in her neighborhood. The incident occurred as part of broader ICE operations throughout Massachusetts that have proceeded without coordination with local authorities, according to town officials.
During the encounter, Fitzpatrick expressed her concerns about the federal agents operating in her community. “I live in this community, this is very concerning to me,” she said as she recorded the officers, who were in uniform and displaying badges during their operation.
Child Raped by Illegal Migrant in a Sanctuary state in 2022 now in ICE custody … ERO Boston arrests Guatemalan national charged with rape of Massachusetts child who crossed into the USA illegally https://t.co/sSTWihHl4Z
June 10, 2024
BOSTON — Enforcement and Removal… pic.twitter.com/HxgQHJUqsH
— SubX.News® (@SubxNews) June 13, 2024
Communication Breakdown Between Federal and Local Authorities
Plymouth Town Manager Derek Brindisi has emphasized that the lack of communication from federal authorities creates unnecessary risks. The absence of coordination is particularly problematic in Plymouth, which is designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction. According to officials, the community needs advance notice to prepare appropriately for federal operations and ensure resident safety.
“It would just be better if these federal agents opened the lines of communication,” stated Derek Brindisi, highlighting the frustration felt by local leadership over ICE’s approach to enforcement activities in their jurisdiction.
Plymouth Select Board member Kevin Canty expressed stronger criticism of ICE’s methods, stating: “This is unacceptable behavior that puts all law enforcement personnel and residents at risk.” Canty’s concerns centered on the potential for confusion when unidentified enforcement operations occur without coordination with local police departments.
Sanctuary Status Creates Enforcement Challenges
The tension in Plymouth occurs against the backdrop of Massachusetts’ complex relationship with federal immigration enforcement. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security published a list of “sanctuary” jurisdictions that included the entire state of Massachusetts (except Hampden County) and 12 municipalities. The designation has drawn criticism from state leaders, including Governor Maura Healey, who maintains that Massachusetts is “not a sanctuary state.”
“We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law,” said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem regarding the publication of the sanctuary jurisdiction list.
ICE has conducted multiple operations throughout Massachusetts recently, including the arrest of a previously deported child rapist. Federal officials contend that sanctuary policies often require them to make street arrests rather than custody transfers, as these jurisdictions typically do not report criminal aliens to ICE. This operational reality has contributed to the friction between federal and local authorities.
Legal Framework Behind the Conflict
The foundation for Massachusetts’ approach to immigration enforcement stems from the 2017 Lunn v. Commonwealth decision. This ruling established that Massachusetts law does not permit holding individuals in state custody solely based on a federal civil immigration detainer, which is a request from ICE to keep a person in custody until ICE can arrest them. Unlike criminal warrants, these detainers are not issued by judges.
Local anti-ICE activists have increasingly interfered with federal operations, including attempts to free detained individuals. These interventions, combined with the legal limitations on cooperation between state and federal authorities, have created an environment where communication challenges are amplified. As federal immigration enforcement continues throughout the state, the disconnect between local and federal priorities remains a source of ongoing tension.
