Opinion: What Happens if ICE Appears in Amherst? Officials Cite Differences

Social Injustice Goes Global

A Meeting of Repeated Questions
I attended the joint meeting of the Town Council and the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee (CSSJC) and the Human Rights Commission on June 8, expecting a discussion. What I did not expect was a two-hour exercise in watching variations of the same question asked repeatedly.

The meeting was convened at the request of the CSSJC and the HRC. Organizers sought responses from the Town Manager and Town Council regarding a wide range of concerns.

Amherst has long been known as one of the most liberal and politically engaged communities in Massachusetts. The town consistently votes overwhelmingly Democratic and has a long tradition of activism, civic participation, and public debate. For many liberal Amherst residents, the conversation was also about solidarity that extends beyond town boundaries and even beyond national borders. Their concerns centered on what obligations a community has toward immigrants, vulnerable populations, and people affected by government policies elsewhere.

What the Questions Were — and Weren’t — Asked
Throughout the evening, speakers repeatedly returned to questions involving ICE, constitutional rights, public safety, federal authority, and the responsibilities of local government.

What remained less clear were the practical questions.

What specific incidents in Amherst led officials to conclude that federal immigration enforcement has undermined public safety? Have there been documented cases of residents refusing to report crimes, cooperate with investigations, seek emergency services, send children to school, or access public programs because of immigration-related concerns? What exactly happens if an ICE operation occurs in Amherst tomorrow? What are town employees, police officers, CRESS responders, school officials, and other municipal personnel instructed to do? Where is the line between non-cooperation and interference? What training has been provided, and are those procedures available for public review?

The first question of the evening was perhaps the most informative. It prompted Amherst Police Department Chief Gabe Ting to explain the limits of local authority, the relationship between municipal police and federal agencies, and what local officers can and cannot legally do. The practical reality became clearer. As the evening progressed, however, the meeting felt more like an extended repetition of previously stated positions.

When the Room Shifted
The most compelling new information emerged when the conversation suddenly shifted from broad policy statements to a real person’s experience.

Town Manager Paul Bockelman and Police Chief Ting touched on Amherst’s approach to demonstrations, public safety, and the protection of free expression, including the town’s tradition of allowing protests to occur peacefully while respecting First Amendment rights.

CSSJC member Anna Derby challenged some of the assumptions being presented, supporting her account with video she had recorded during a protest at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She reminded the audience of the pro-Palestinian demonstrations at UMass in 2024, when 134 people were arrested. Derby also said she knew of three instances of people self-deporting because they do not feel safe.

She asked whether the Amherst Police Department could notify the LUCE Immigrant Hotline of ICE activity in town. Ting said police cannot share information with a nongovernmental organization — though they could inform the town manager, who could then determine whether others in town need to be notified.

The exchange highlighted a recurring theme throughout the evening: the distinction between what residents believe should happen and what local officials believe they are legally authorized to do.

When asked about future ICE activity, Ting emphasized that the legal landscape continues to evolve and that the town is seeking additional guidance from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office while coordinating with other Western Massachusetts communities facing similar questions.

“But to give you that definite answer, if we’re going to enforce in a certain way — no, we’re not going to cross those boundaries until the law allows us to,” Ting said.

Facts vs. Testimony
Throughout the meeting, a recurring refrain from officials was: “We have not seen that,” or “We have not made that assessment.” Officials repeatedly returned to documented facts, legal authority, and established procedures. Yet here was a resident presenting firsthand testimony and video evidence from her own experience.

Another memorable moment came when a young woman asked a simple question: Do officers have body cameras?

The question focused on accountability. The enthusiasm in the response suggested that department leadership viewed body-camera technology as both valuable and potentially attainable if resources become available. In an era when nearly every public controversy produces competing narratives, body-camera footage has become one of the most important tools for establishing a factual record.

That exchange also reflected a broader tension visible throughout the evening. Neither perspective fully displaced the other. Instead, they coexisted, often speaking to different concerns.

One side was asking, “What is the right thing to do?”

The other was asking, “What are we legally able to do?”

The Problem With “Hypothetical”
Another word surfaced repeatedly throughout the evening: hypothetical.

Town Manager Bockelman frequently resisted questions framed around hypothetical scenarios. Residents wanted to know what would happen if ICE agents appeared at a school, if federal officers requested assistance from local police, if a resident claimed their rights had been violated, or if an enforcement action escalated into a public confrontation. Again and again, officials emphasized the difficulty of answering questions based on situations that had not actually occurred.

From an administrative perspective, the reluctance was understandable. Public officials are often cautious about speculating, policies are generally written to address actual events rather than imagined ones, and municipal leaders typically prefer to respond to facts rather than predictions.

Yet for many residents, the hypothetical questions were precisely the point. The executive order itself was created in anticipation of possible future events. Residents were trying to understand how the policy would function in the very situations it was designed to address.

This revealed another tension running through the meeting. Officials wanted to discuss documented facts, existing law, and current procedures. Many residents wanted to discuss preparedness, contingencies, and worst-case scenarios. One side was focused on what is. The other was focused on what could be.

The word “hypothetical” became a dividing line between two different ways of thinking about public policy. For town officials, such questions appeared speculative and difficult to answer responsibly. For residents, they were a way of testing whether the town was truly prepared for the circumstances that motivated the executive order in the first place.

The irony is that emergency planning itself is largely hypothetical. Communities prepare for floods, fires, public health emergencies, and severe weather long before those events occur. The value of a plan is often measured by how well it answers questions before a crisis arrives.

Several attendees asked what would happen if ICE agents attempted to enter a school, a religious institution, or a medical facility. Although Amherst has maintained sanctuary policies for years, federal immigration enforcement policies have changed, and some assumptions residents previously held about protected spaces no longer appear as clear-cut as they once were.

What the Meeting Did — and Didn’t — Resolve
Police Chief Ting described a tabletop exercise conducted with Amherst College to explore potential ICE-related scenarios and noted that additional exercises are being planned with the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst College, and the Massachusetts State Police. Those responses underscored how much uncertainty remains.

Officials repeatedly emphasized documented evidence, legal authority, formal assessments, and evolving guidance from state and federal agencies. As a result, many of the issues discussed throughout the evening felt frustratingly unresolved. Questions surrounding future ICE activity, municipal authority, institutional responsibilities, and emergency response protocols remain subjects of ongoing interpretation, planning, and legal review.

What stayed with me were the moments when new information actually emerged: the explanation of police authority, the testimony of a protest participant, and the discussion of body-camera technology.

Residents wanted clear answers about what would happen under specific circumstances. Officials often responded that they could not provide definitive answers because many of those circumstances remain hypothetical and dependent on evolving legal guidance.

Many of the questions from Amherst residents reflected a conviction that uncertainty itself is a reason for action. The concern was not simply what had already happened, but what could happen tomorrow. They wanted assurance that the town was prepared to respond before a crisis occurred rather than after one had unfolded.

Perhaps that is why the disagreement was not always over the facts. Often it was over how much certainty a community can reasonably expect before the future arrives.

---

Rizwana Khan is a writer, educator, and human rights advocate in Amherst.