Not a sanctuary city, resolution withdrawn amid public outcries
HOLYOKE — A resolution to protect Holyoke’s federal funding re-ignited a ideological firestorm this week, as city councilors clashed over immigration policy, public perception and political theater before voting to withdraw the measure.
With police standing guard and emotions running high, Holyoke’s City Council voted 7-6 vote Tuesday to withdraw the resolution that would have formally declared the city is not a sanctuary city, a safe haven for immigrants without proper federal documentation.
City Council President Tessa R. Murphy-Romboletti said Thursday that giving a resolution “leave to withdraw” means the council opts not to vote on it at all.
“We don’t vote it up or down — we just remove it from consideration entirely,” Murphy-Romboletti said.
The resolution could return to the City Council for consideration only if a councilor filed a new order, restarting the legislative process from the beginning, Murphy-Romboletti said.
Per procedure, the vote happened after the council’s development and governmental relations committee met on Monday. Committee Chair Kocayne S. Givner said the group voted 3-0 to withdraw the resolution.
Givner said the order sparked a long discussion and, while there was a lot of community representation at Monday’s meeting, there wasn’t much support for the resolution.
Claire McGale, organizer and member of the group The Real Majority Holyoke, speaks to the gathered crowd outside Holyoke City Hall on Sept. 9. Demonstrators show their dissatisfaction with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy. (Douglas Hook / The Republican, File)Douglas Hook
Public outcry
Before the committee made its decision, several councilors and residents spoke about the resolution during a public discussion.
Orlando Izaza, who said he has been a proud immigrant since 1965, spoke emotionally during the meeting. He said he’s deeply grateful for the freedom and opportunities he’s found in the United States.
“I am here to beg you, to ask you, please do not instruct our Police Department to work with the federal government,” Izaza said. “Right now, they are part of what I would call — and forgive my words — a reign of terror. Civil rights and due process is being denied for those who are incarcerated.”
Organizer Claire McGale said writing any letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security asking how to comply with what she called unconstitutional actions could put more than 60% of the city’s population at risk.
“We should not roll out the red carpet for the gestapo,” she said, using a term linked to Nazi Germany to criticize federal immigration enforcement.
Emma Kerr, who spoke at both meetings, said the resolution doesn’t match what its sponsors say it means.
“If the goal is just to say Holyoke isn’t a sanctuary city, it’s hard to believe that’s all this resolution is about,” she said.
Kerr pointed to social media posts by City Councilor Linda Vacon that praised ICE agents, saying they were protecting the public.
“You can’t nod your head yes and then say no with your voice,” Kerr said. “We’re reading, we’re listening, and we know what this says.”
Libby Hernandez, who moved to Holyoke in 1994 with her two children, said the city has been kind and welcoming.
Now a professional working with farmworkers and immigrant families, she said many live in fear because of today’s political climate.
“Holyoke, we are not like this,” she said. “If this passes, you know the people of color and brown people will be harassed.”
Outside Holyoke City Hall, demonstrators show their dissatisfaction with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy on Sept. 9. (Douglas Hook / The Republican, File)Douglas Hook
Sewing political division
Resolution backers Vacon and City Councilor Kevin Jourdain pushed back against claims that the resolution supports cooperation with ICE.
“To conflate (ICE cooperation) with the resolution is to simply mischaracterize … as so many things have been in relative to this discussion," she said.
Vacon said she praised ICE in the past only when agents deported people who had committed serious crimes.
“Under those circumstances, I did thank ICE, as I would our police officers in a similar situation,” Vacon said.
She said critics are misinterpreting the resolution and warned against confusing opinions with facts.
“The words say what they mean and mean what they say,” she said. “My intention is to protect the city and its funding.”
Vacon said the resolution is meant to protect Holyoke from being wrongly labeled a sanctuary city, which could put federal funding at risk.
“If we don’t get an explanation, we could be added or removed from the list at any time without knowing why,” she said Monday.
Jourdain also said the resolution is about following federal law and protecting Holyoke’s funding.
“As U.S. citizens, we don’t get to pick and choose which federal laws we follow,” he said.
He warned that rejecting the resolution could put more than $10 million in federal money at risk.
“If this gets defeated,” Jourdain said, “you’re going to be part of who’s responsible if we lose these funds.”
Councilor Israel Rivera said Holyoke already passed an ordinance on immigration enforcement years ago and said the issue has been addressed.
“This particular resolution is creating division,” Rivera said. “Even if we feel like the police aren’t going to do (immigration enforcement), the public doesn’t know that.”
He also questioned the urgency around protecting federal funding, pointing out that the city has lost grants before without similar concern.
“What are we doing?” Rivera asked. “Are we rubber-stamping something that’s already been stamped, or are we trying to communicate with the federal government?”
Outside Holyoke City Hall, demonstrators show their dissatisfaction with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy on Sept. 9. (Douglas Hook / The Republican, File)Douglas Hook
Sanctuary city confusion
In May, the Trump administration listed Holyoke as one of 11 Massachusetts cities that block federal immigration enforcement.
Mayor Joshua Garcia publicly disputed the claim, and the list has since been revised. Now, only Boston is considered a sanctuary city on the list.
However, other communities in Western Massachusetts, like Amherst and Northampton, have declared themselves sanctuary cities, while Pittsfield, North Adams and Greenfield recently adopted protections for transgender residents. These are not on the federal list .
Murphy-Romboletti questioned why Holyoke was included in the original list, because it already has been declared not a sanctuary city. She said the resolution that followed in June by Vacon and Jourdain only sewed more confusion.
“That tells me that (the order) doesn’t actually have to do with being a sanctuary city; it probably has more to do with the fact that we have a lot of people of color in our community,” Murphy-Romboletti said.
The resolution urged city departments to follow federal immigration laws, especially when applying for grants.
The resolution stated that Holyoke is not a sanctuary city and recommends sharing that message with federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the White House.
It also asked city departments to include the statement in grant applications when needed and requests notification if Holyoke is ever found in violation of federal law.
Jourdain and Vacon said the resolution supports the mayor’s public stance and cite a 2017 city ordinance requiring officials to follow all laws.
People were confused about why the June order needed to be filed, and the language itself was unclear — which created space for misinformation to spread, Murphy-Romboletti said.
Murphy-Romboletti said she’s often opposed to city resolutions that deal with national politics, like the war in Gaza.
“As a city councilor, I don’t want to spend time debating those topics, because that’s not what we’re elected to do,” she said.
In September, Mayor Garcia responded to the order by saying immigration policy is the mayor’s responsibility, not the City Council’s.
He reaffirmed a 2014 executive order from former Mayor Alex Morse, which says Holyoke police will not hold people for immigration violations, unless the person is the subject of a criminal warrant, has been indicted, arraigned or convicted in relation to a criminal offense, or is a registered Massachusetts sex offender.
“We do not do the work of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE,” Garcia said previously.
Garcia said the city’s policy is based on Massachusetts law and aims to protect public safety by building trust between residents and police.
“My priority is to ensure the safety and well-being of all Holyoke residents,” he said previously.
Read the original article on MassLive . Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here .
