What’s Driving Massachusetts’ Bad Immigration Polices?

Democrats and progressives across the country are divided about how to react to the voters’ apparent repudiation of open borders last November. Establishment Democrats prefer comparatively measured opposition, calculating that President Trump will eventually be incapacitated by political scandals, fragmentation of the MAGA coalition, and/or failures in the economy or foreign policy. More militant elements prefer defiant confrontation, including aggressive legislative and executive action and court challenges. Their hope is that opinion can be swayed by drawing attention to the plight of migrants and perhaps by overreaction from the Administration.  

Many blue states and localities are pursuing the confrontational approach on immigration as well as other issues. Before the election, progressive think tanks and foundations, along with Democratic governors, developed contingency plans for resisting potential Republican policies through an assertive exercise of state power, with 15 Democrat-controlled states taking the lead. After the election, California’s Governor Newsom called a special legislative session to make laws “Trump-proof,” and the governors of Colorado and Illinois announced a “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” effort. Democratic attorneys general have also accelerated court challenges to the administration.

It should be pointed out that nearly all opposition by elected officials aims to impede long-standing and legally robust ICE practices, such as the deportation of criminal aliens,  ICE incarceration practices, and sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized foreign workers.

Massachusetts: Stunted Debate in a One-Party State

Massachusetts is distinctive for its lack of competition between parties and ideas. Democrats hold all statewide elected offices, all nine House seats, and over 80% of state legislative seats. Three-fourths of legislative races go uncontested. Open borders orthodoxy is unchallenged. 

The state is a magnet for unlawful migrants. Laws against hiring unauthorized foreign workers remain unenforced, and benefits to unlawful migrants are the country’s second-highest. The number of unlawful residents rose from about 100,000 (1.5% of the population) in 2000 to 350,000 (5%) in 2024. If it continues, the surge of marginalized, unskilled, welfare-dependent migrants will probably transform Massachusetts from a high-income state with a highly productive workforce into a low-wage economy with more inequality, less social mobility, and an eroded tax base. Still, nobody dares to question whether illegal immigration is good for the state.

The peak of open borders enthusiasm may have been 2022, when a bill granting drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens passed by margins of 124-36 in the House and 32-8 in the Senate despite polls showing that most voters opposed it. Republicans were unable to persuade the voters that it mattered, as their gubernatorial candidate led the ticket to a historic defeat. Shortly after the election, state legislative leaders bypassed normal channels to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, and newly elected Governor Healey hailed the move as a “no-brainer.” 

Events after 2022 rattled the prevailing complacency on immigration. Owing to the Biden border surge, migrants poured in, squatting in airports and subway stations. Many, likely coached by NGOs, were attracted by Massachusetts’ generous benefits, notably its unique statewide “Right-to-Shelter” law. At the late 2024 peak, almost 5,000 migrant families were housed in temporary shelters, hotels, and government facilities at a cost of $800 million annually (an astounding $170,000 per household). Public outcries ensued as migrants displaced low-income residents while overwhelming the capacities of smaller communities amid revelations of violence in shelters.

The Governor attempted to contain the backlash, imposing residency requirements and criminal background checks. Predictably, Republican legislative leaders demanded more transparency, tighter eligibility, and improved vetting while progressive Democrats vowed to resist any eligibility restrictions.

The new Administration’s loudly trumpeted efforts to secure the border have stirred open-borders supporters to action. The eight existing Massachusetts sanctuary cities reaffirmed their status, and a few others declared themselves sanctuaries. Mass migration advocacy groups and state legislators announced a “protect our immigrants” initiative, including the perennial “Safe Communities” sanctuary act and a legal defense fund for those facing deportation.

In addition to the immigrant defense fund proposed through normal legislative channels (S. 1127) the leaders of the legislature circumvented these channels, using the budget reconciliation process to launch a $5 million fund for “immigrant legal services.” (See section 4003-0124 of the draft state budget.) The funds will be distributed to unspecified organizations and eventually used for “representation for immigrants and refugees in the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, legal assistance in a single consultation or ongoing legal representation and all legal advice, advocacy, and related assistance. In other words, the funds will be available to an unidentified set of migrant advocacy groups operating with minimal transparency.

During Congressional hearings on sanctuary cities, Boston Mayor Wu emerged as the face of defiant confrontation, insisting that local police would not help enforce federal immigration laws and that sanctuary policies bolster confidence in immigrant communities. She subsequently described demands by federal officials for cooperation in removing criminal aliens as “bullying”. Although it may be helpful for Mayor Wu’s upcoming re-election campaign, confrontation carries risks in Massachusetts, which occasionally elects Republican governors to curb the excesses of progressive lawmakers. A governor who is already seen as responsible for the migrant shelter crisis and refuses to cooperate in securing the border could be particularly vulnerable. Sensing this, Governor Healey has sided with the open borders forces enough to mollify her base while presenting as moderate a face as possible. For example, she denied that Massachusetts is a sanctuary state and offered to cooperate in deporting criminal aliens.

Sanctuary: A Pivotal Issue in 2026

Sanctuary, meaning the refusal of states and localities to cooperate with ICE in dealing with persons in their custody who have been ordered for removal by immigration courts, is likely to be an area of conflict in 2026 when voters choose the governor, a US senator, all nine US representatives, and 200 state legislators. 

The Trump Administration has pledged to deport all illegal aliens, starting with the 1.4 million persons nationwide (including 1 million convicted felons) who have received final orders of removal. Acts of Congress stipulate that these persons must be deported. Congress has appropriated funds to facilitate their removal, and polls continue to show strong public support for mass deportations. If the Administration cannot succeed in removing these individuals, there is not much point in discussing any other aspect of immigration policy. 

Actions by state open borders proponents cannot succeed in halting deportations by a determined Administration with the backing of a congressional majority, favorable court decisions, and support from the citizenry. Nevertheless, open borders advocates are determined to register their disapproval through public demonstrations and widely covered committee hearings. One tactical objective would be to force a vote in the legislature on Massachusetts’s dangerous sanctuary policies.

Immigration-related bills that are active in the legislature are shown in the Table. The “Safe Communities Act” would impose sanctuary provisions on all cities and towns in the state. A second bill (H.2580/S.1681 ) would create additional restraints on ICE interaction with persons in custody. A third (H. 1588/S. 1122) would forbid cooperation agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, even though no such agreements exist in the state. (In earlier legislative sessions, this bill was combined with the “Safe Communities” act.) Meanwhile, two Republican backed bills (S. 1096 and H. 2701) would enable localities to cooperate with ICE in removing criminal aliens. 

Candidates and incumbent legislators will have to take positions on these bills. Legislative leaders will have to decide whether to report bills from committee or to permit floor votes. If such bills were to pass both chambers of the legislature, the Governor would have to decide whether to formalize full sanctuary status for Massachusetts.

Until 2025, most Democratic legislators did not want to vote for sanctuary bills, realizing that even in Massachusetts, many Democrat-leaning voters disagreed with their party on illegal immigration. Thus, in 2022, when the Democratic candidate for governor was winning 64-35%, the bill allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses only survived a ballot recall by a 52-44% margin. Nevertheless, in 2025, the rising tide of militancy has pushed previously moderate Democrats toward open borders. In 2022-24, only 17 of 36 Democratic Senators and 16 of 132 Democratic Representatives cosponsored the “Safe Communities Act” (whereas 90 representatives co-sponsored the driver’s license bill). This year, 21 Democratic Senators and 55 Democratic Representatives are listed as co-sponsors.

Dissecting the 2024 GOP Mini-Surge

Although Harris carried the state 61-36% and a similar margin re-elected Senator Warren, the proportional shift to Republicans was among the highest nationally, even though Republicans picked up only one state Senate seat and three House seats (net). Furthermore, it is hard to measure the exact size of the shift because most races were uncontested.  

Many gains came from ethnic minorities, particularly Latino voters. Lawrence City, a heavily Hispanic area, gave Trump 43% of the vote, a 30-point Democratic drop from 2020. The six most Hispanic cities in Massachusetts saw Harris’ margin drop a combined 18 points from 2020. 

One possible outcome in 2026 is that, whatever happens nationally, the Commonwealth will remain a bastion of progressivism and open borders. Alternatively, it can be plausibly argued that Republican gains in 2024 were the first signs of a fundamental realignment, and by clinging to open borders, Democrats will hasten their own decline.

John Thompson is the Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform. The opinions in the article are his own.