Opinion by Freke Ette
On Monday, February 23, the Town Council will vote on, “The Town of Amherst Resolution Calling for Federal Immigration Agents to be Held Accountable for Violations of Massachusetts Criminal Law.”
This resolution condemns the Trump administration for recent immigration actions targeting underrepresented groups. It demands state, county and local officials take steps to protect residents under their jurisdiction from the unlawful actions of federal officers and requests the Governor to immediately cease cooperation agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The compulsion to respond to infractions committed by agents of the current administration is palpable. Televised cruelty has become our national motif, so we are goaded to act, to signal that we stand beside our neighbors, friends and strangers.
Resolutions serve as powerful tools for advocacy; their power manifested in real local impact. Amherst is not hostage to rumors and breaking news, and the sponsors haven’t demonstrated it should move posthaste.
The proposed resolution is ill-conceived in theory, and more likely futile in effect. While townspeople might feel good with its passage, by overlooking the range of political opinions in town and ignoring cogent avenues to address needed changes, it will fail to achieve its ostensible purpose.
The Town Council is most representative when it engages in public discussion. Yet in most cases, resolutions pass without debate as part of a consent agenda.
This resolution may follow a similar path.
Without debate, Amherst loses an opportunity to reflect on suitable responses to ICE. One may be revolted by the horrific videos from Minneapolis, photos of kids ripped from their parents, and yet still support some form of immigration enforcement that includes a role for ICE and other federal agencies.
When a sponsor, during the GOL session, asserts, “The lawless mob that is ICE will come to Amherst, sooner or later, and they will sow terror. They will disrupt our schools and workplaces; they will kidnap our friends and neighbors; and they will disempower our public servants,” that is a brusque statement that passes for truth.
Yet many people working for ICE, and the Department of Homeland Security, belies this description. They operate within the bounds of the law and, in their own small way, help to keep our communities safe. Some of our residents understand that.
Here are a couple of ways to include different perspectives from Amherst’s residents. The Town Council could request an evaluation of Amherst’s Sanctuary Bylaw from the Town Attorneys. Their opinion would establish a model for future amendments.
In addition, the Town Council may seek a comprehensive update from the Town Manager, clarifying preparations by the DEI and Amherst Police departments for a change in the status quo and up-to-date information on Amherst’s interactions with ICE.
By ignoring these preliminary steps, residents remain ignorant of any plans by the town to protect them.
There are three models of cooperation under 287 (g) agreements. The jail enforcement model has local officers verify the immigration status of individuals booked into a local jail, while the warrant service model authorizes local officers to serve and even execute ICE administrative warrants to those already in local custody.
The third, the task force model guarantees the closest relationship with ICE. Local police officers possess broad authority to enforce immigration during routine policing.
From most accounts, Massachusetts only operates the jail enforcement model.
Before requesting its termination, the least we could do is find out how it has been implemented from inception. Are we aware of any abuse? Can the state strengthen oversight?
Calling on the Governor to unilaterally withdraw from its cooperation agreements deserves a little more consideration. 287 (g) agreements span more than the Trump administration. Why encourage the state to select how it relates to the federal government based on who occupies the White House.
Ironically, none of these requests may matter if past actions serve as a guide, considering the Town Council doesn’t revisit demands from its own resolutions.
Last year, Town Council urged Massachusetts’ congressional delegation, “To continue to push their congressional colleagues to exercise their legislative authority to enforce the Constitution, to work with the Judicial Branch to restore the separation of powers, and to ensure that illegal or unconstitutional acts, including acts of corruption, are overturned.”
Since that resolution passed, the Town Council hasn’t reached out to the state’s congressional delegation. How were the conversations with colleagues on Capitol Hill? Are there extra steps Amherst can take to persuade legislators and judicial officials at the national level?
We’ve heard only the sound of…silence.
What’s our response if the state maintains its relationship with ICE or Amherst Police Chief doesn’t offer an adequate response? We don’t know because resolutions lack guidelines to measure success. The sponsors don’t seem to have thought further than Monday’s vote.
Let us not be mistaken, defending democracy is slow and boring work. For the Town Council that will demand long hours spent in deliberation; for Amherst residents, it requires vigilance that doesn’t surrender to panic.
As we amplify our voices through resolutions, we must embrace the tedious task of legislation.
Freke Ette served on the Amherst Town Council 2024-2025 and has lived in Amherst since 2020.
Discover more from THE AMHERST CURRENT
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
THE AMHERST CURRENT 
Freke raises process questions the Council genuinely needs to hear — the follow-through problem is real, and the 287(g) analysis is useful grounding. I say this as someone who respects his thinking and is glad to call him a friend.
Two things give me pause, though.
The “lawless mob” passage is a response to a statement made by one sponsor at the GOL meeting. That person’s words aren’t the resolution. Whatever one thinks of that comment, the resolution itself is precise and measured — it cites Whitehead v. Senkowski to establish a standard that applies only to agents who acted without legal authority, who didn’t believe their actions were necessary, or whose actions weren’t objectively reasonable. It grounds every claim in specific documented incidents in Massachusetts — a Tufts student kidnapped in defiance of a court order, an 18-year-old detained without warrant in Worcester, assaults in Essex and Middlesex counties. One person’s remarks at a committee meeting, however strongly felt, don’t define what the resolution actually does.
The second issue is more fundamental. Freke suggests two alternatives: that the Council request a Town Attorney evaluation of the Sanctuary Bylaw, and that it seek a comprehensive update from the Town Manager on preparations by the DEI and Police departments. But these aren’t things residents can ask for — they’re things only the Council or Town Manager can initiate. Under Amherst’s charter, residents have limited formal ways to influence town government. Whether the Council then follows through is a legitimate and separate question — but it’s a question about the Council’s accountability, not the residents’. Freke is conflating two distinct things: the residents’ responsibility to engage, and the Council’s responsibility to act. Residents who bring a resolution are doing exactly what the charter asks of them. Holding them responsible for what the Council does or doesn’t do with it isn’t a reason to discourage civic engagement — it’s a reason to demand better from the Council.
Freke is right that passing a resolution without follow-through is its own failure. But the answer to that is better follow-through, not abandoning the one tool residents actually have.
One final thought: Freke’s process concerns are worth taking seriously — but they are not a reason to vote no tonight. If the argument is that residents should pursue more deliberate channels of engagement, then councilors who find that persuasive have an obligation to create those channels. You cannot hold residents to a standard of civic participation that the charter doesn’t actually provide. Residents brought a resolution because that is what the charter gives them. Tonight, the Council has the opportunity to show that the charter works — that when residents do their part, the Council does its.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments, Michele. I especially appreciate your close reading and measured objections to my arguments.
Before addressing your criticisms, I’ll begin with some positions of broad consensus.
First, our communities buckle under siege, a reign of bespoke terror pervades the land, and we now live in an era of diabolic untruth. Second, residents ought to be proud of Amherst’s culture of activism. Our town champions the rights of the less privileged and the causes of the underrepresented in its midst. Third, America remains a country where public discussion is permitted and encouraged. The marketplace of ideas represents a real place and isn’t merely an outmoded metaphor. Four, Town Council is tough work. Long hours and endless criticism, overseeing town government while balancing competing interests. We salute our representatives for their service.
On to your objections.
I quoted the sponsor of the resolution, not to invalidate the proposal, but to illustrate the danger when one mistakes one’s desire for the town’s. And while 300 community sponsors may be a significant number, it is in no way an overwhelming endorsement from Amherst’s residents. No councilor would hope to persuade the public by using such intemperate rhetoric.
Your second objection distills the debate to its essence. The question isn’t whether the public can raise a resolution, since clearly, they can. Rather, it is a question of how the Council should respond to it.
My argument is that the Town Council, in this case, had two tasks: to educate the public and to legislate. I find it baffling that the Council didn’t take an obvious step to ask the officers tasked to protect the town what their preparations were. Perhaps sentiments like those expressed during public comment—where someone asked, “What will [the Town Council] do if the Amherst Police Department fails to uphold their responsibility?”—may have been assuaged with answers from a Council presentation.
Regarding legislation, if the town’s sanctuary bylaw is deemed inadequate, then councilors should change it. Likewise with Beacon Hill. If any indication exists that Massachusetts has declined to prosecute federal agents for criminal misconduct, then councilors may advocate for reform at the state legislature. The Town Council already unabashedly lobbies its representatives for funding for roads and schools.
A certain malaise pervades America’s body politic. Discouraged by the intractable ideological sparring and internecine partisan conflicts, citizens display a phobia to legislation, even as lethargic legislatures suffer an allergy to their core function. Justice Neil Gorsuch alluded to these sentiments in his recent concurrence to the Learning Resources.
Much more than a resolution is at stake when we substitute the rule of edicts for the rule of law.
So, while I support the public’s right to a resolution, I also support the Town Council taking ownership of the public’s inchoate desire. With no discussion of a follow-up, no promise of collaboration with the Town Manager, only a set of demands were harmlessly ejected into the atmosphere. We have much more to do to keep Amherst, Massachusetts and the United States safe.
LikeLiked by 1 person