Public Comment: Residents Demand Assurances That Town Will Protect Its Residents from ICE Violations of the Law

By John Bonifaz, Jeff Conant, and Josna Rege

Amherst Town Council received at their meeting on April 6, 2026. four public comments concerning the failure of the Town Manager’s Executive Order of March 3, 2026, affirming the town government’s commitment to protect the constitutional rights of Amherst residents, to actually protect those rights.  Three of those comments were presented at the meeting and one was submitted in writing.  Three of those comments were submitted to the Indy and are posted in their entirety below.

John Bonifaz
The following public comment was made at the meeting of the Amherst Town Council on April 6, 2026.

I want to start by thanking Town Council Members who unanimously voted at the February 23 council meeting to pass the Town of Amherst Resolution Calling for Federal Immigration Agents to be Held Accountable for Violations of Massachusetts Criminal Law.

That resolution included language calling on [t]he Amherst Town Manager to work “with other Massachusetts local officials, including police and other public safety and municipal leaders in consultation with legal partners, to swiftly develop and implement protocols for protecting the safety and civil rights of all local residents in the event of a federal immigration enforcement action.”  The resolution also included language that “there is a well-established history of state prosecutions of federal agents and troops who commit crimes in violation of state law” with a footnote citing key court precedent which is part of that well-established history.

On March 3, 2026, in response to that resolution, the Town Manager issued an Executive Order. That three-and-a-half page executive order included only one line addressing how the Amherst Police Department should respond to calls related to ICE actions in the Town of Amherst. That line on page 2 of the order states as follows: “When responding to calls related to ICE activity, the APD shall take reasonable steps to verify that the individuals on scene are Federal agents and gather relevant information.” Completely missing from the executive order is any language ensuring that the Amherst Police Department will enforce state criminal law against federal agents if they are engaged in unlawful actions in Amherst. This glaring omission undermines a central purpose of the Town Council’s February 23 resolution.

Related to this, on February 18, 2026, several days before the February 23 council meeting, Councilor [Jill] Brevik, Councilor [Andy] Churchill, and I met with Amherst Police Chief [Gabe] Ting and Captain [Ronald] Young to discuss the resolution then pending before the council.  In the meeting, Chief Ting would not commit that the Amherst Police Department would [be] enforcing state criminal law against federal agents if they are engaged in unlawful actions in Amherst. When I highlighted that Vice President JD Vance had wrongly stated that federal agents have absolute immunity in carrying out their actions across the country, Chief Ting responded: “You keep citing JD Vance. We are not taking sides here.” To which I replied: “The only side we are asking you to take is the rule of law.”

Contrast the Town Manager’s March 3 executive order and Chief Ting’s statements at that February 18 meeting with what the mayor of Denver, Colorado has done. On February 26, 2026, Denver Mayor Michael Johnston issued an executive order “to protect Denverites from unconstitutional and dangerous federal operations.” At a press conference announcing the executive order, Mayor Johnston stated: “To protect Denver, if we see any ICE officer using excessive force against a Denver resident, we will step in to detain that officer and remove them from the situation. We hold our own officers to that standard, and we will hold any ICE agent to the same.”

I urge the Town Council to call upon the Town Manager to issue a revised executive order which is in the spirit of the Denver Mayor’s statement and action and consistent with the purpose of the Council’s February 23 resolution.

Jeff Conant
The following public comment was submitted in writing to the Town Council for their meeting on April 6, 2026.

I am writing to thank you for your public service, and for the notable commitment to the security of our town that you demonstrated by the adoption of the Town Resolution calling for Federal Immigration Agents to be Held Accountable for Violations of Massachusetts Criminal Law. These are serious times, and the adoption of this resolution was a serious act, commensurate with the threats faced by our democracy.

Regrettably, it seems that not all of our town’s public officials are able, or willing, to take steps to implement the letter and spirit of the resolution. Shortly after the resolution’s adoption, Town Manager Paul Bockelman issued an Executive Order that seems to undermine a central purpose of the resolution – the hope, expressed by hundreds of Amherst residents, that our public officials will actively enforce state laws when faced with actions of clear criminal intent. This disavowal of the public will fails to recognize the unprecedented gravity of the threat to democracy and the public order we currently face, and consequently raises numerous serious questions.

In September 2025, federal agents smashed the windows of a family’s vehicle in Chelsea, Massachusetts. They abducted the autistic son and threw the mother to the ground. When the daughter arrived at the scene, she was prevented from protecting them. When Chelsea police arrived, they quite reasonably ordered the ICE officers to check the detainees’ identification. This simple, responsible action, which is entirely in the line of duty, led to the release of the family, who are legally in the United States.

If confronted with such a scenario, how would the Amherst Police be directed to act?

If a child in the Amherst schools is forced into a vehicle against their will, will the APD require the abducting person show ID and a judicial warrant? How will these actions differ if the assailant appears to be an ICE agent?

If someone demands or forces entry into a private residence in Amherst, what actions will APD take to prevent illegal search and seizure?

Who will document and record what is happening if federal authorities act in a way that violates the rights of an Amherst resident? If the federal agents demand that bystanders refrain from witnessing, what will APB do?

In general, if people appear in our town, masked and armed, and act with clear aggressive intent, who can Amherst residents call for aid?

As you well know, these are not idle questions, but are serious questions based on events happening across our country every day. I respectfully urge the Town Council to read these questions publicly, to make known the gravity of these concerns. I would further urge the Council to formally request that the Town Manager issue a revised executive order that includes language adopted in the aforementioned Town Council Resolution.

Josna Rege
The following public comment was offered at the meeting of the Amherst Town Council on April 6, 2026.

As one of the 300 community co-sponsors of the Town of Amherst Resolution to Hold Federal Agents Accountable for Violating Massachusetts Criminal Law, I was very pleased when the council approved it unanimously. I was also impressed with how promptly after the vote our Town Manager issued an Executive Order to town employees, specifically to the Amherst Police Department (APD), instructing them what to do in the event of an ICE action in their jurisdiction. However, the Executive Order raised more questions than it answered, questions that I would like to ask of our Police chief.  

In my view, the executive order falls short of both the letter and the spirit of Amherst’s resolution as it related to the actions of the APD and other public safety officials. Therefore it is incumbent on the council members who approved the resolution and the community members who co-sponsored it to follow up on our important first step in order to ensure that it is not merely a symbolic statement, but will actually serve to protect us.

To my disappointment, I found the Executive Order to be a reiteration of our existing sanctuary city bylaw, which states that the APD will not cooperate with federal agents in ICE enforcement proceedings, followed by a strongly worded statement saying that while the APD would not cooperate with federal agents (with a list of exceptions), it would not take much positive action to protect Amherst residents from criminal violations of their rights.

The resolution approved by the council called for the town manager to a) collect and preserve evidence and b) to swiftly develop and implement protocols for protecting our safety and civil rights in the event of a federal immigration enforcement action. It did address the first provision: “APD officers shall investigate allegations of criminal conduct within its jurisdiction, in accordance with local, state, and federal law.” However, in my view its response to the second provision was weak and inadequate.  

Let me briefly review the specific parts of the executive order that undercut what was called for in the resolution. 

Under “Policy”
The order rightly states that municipal employees will not participate in an operation led by a federal agency solely for enforcement of Federal civil immigration laws. However, it lists exceptions: 
1.“when requested to assist with support services deemed necessary to ensure officer safety, public safety.” But the ICE agent who killed Renee Good said he felt his safety was in danger. Further, federal agents delayed emergency vehicles from getting to her. What would the APD do in such a situation? 

2. “to prevent a breach of the peace during a federal operation, including requests to establish traffic perimeters control traffic, or provide police escort.” But an agent’s perception of “a breach of the peace” is subjective. Would the APD just take the agent’s word for it?  

3. “in response to an arrest warrant or other state or federal judicial order.”Why would the fact that there was a judicial arrest warrant allow the APD to cooperate with ICE?  

Under “Compliance with the law”
The order stipulates,1. “APD does not inquire with anyone regarding their immigration status.” But couldn’t APD prompt ICE agents to ask for a resident’s status? 

2. “No municipal employee shall obstruct, interfere, prohibit, or otherwise prevent the federal enforcement of immigration laws, including federal investigations, enforcement operations, or ICE detainers.” What if the enforcement operation is clearly seen to be violating Massachusetts criminal law? What if federal investigators prevent local officials from carrying out their own investigation? 

Under “De-escalation and provision of first aid” 
The order states:“If someone is injured in the carrying out of an ICE action, the town will call for emergency medical services.” I should hope so! But would the APD prevent a resident from being injured in the first place? 

Under “Scope”
In closing— and clearly with input from the town counsel—the Town Manager reiterates: “Nothing in the executive order should be seen to be in conflict with any federal law or policy, legal requirements of a federally supported program, or interfere with the enforcement of criminal law.”

This executive order keeps Amherst safe from litigation, but doesn’t do much to keep Amherst residents safe in our own town. Therefore I am asking the Town Council to arrange for a special meeting with the Amherst Police Chief, to ask him how he proposes to respond in the event that any of the abovementioned situations should arise.