English
Spanish
Portuguese
Arabic
Haitian Creole
Chinese (Traditional)
Action follows weeks of discussion over original proposal of Council order rejecting broader interaction between local employees, federal agencies
By Steve Freker
The specter of immigration law enforcement that has gripped many parts of this country is affecting residents here in Malden, several City Councillors attested. Led by chief City Council sponsors Carey McDonald (At Large) and Stephen Winslow (Ward 6), a resolution was approved unanimously, expressing strong, definitive opposition to the use of municipal resources “to assist with the Federal government’s responsibility for civil (non-criminal) immigration enforcement in any manner not required by law, court order, or subpoena.”
Further, the resolution noted condemnation of the actions of one specific federal agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stating specifically, “We support the protections in the US Constitution for due process and condemn aggressive and inhumane tactics of ICE agents in Malden and other communities across the country.”
This vote came following discussions held over several weeks and in subcommittee meetings, which followed a late-January Council meeting where Councillors McDonald and Winslow originally proposed passage of a formal Council order, calling for a potential policy instructing: “…No city employees, departments, appointees, processes or representatives shall assist in fulfilling the unique and separate responsibilities of the Federal government, including immigration enforcement, or cooperate with any Federal agencies or policies contrary to the stated goal of this Order. Through executive action, through select boards, other Councils are acting on this.”
The proposal for the order — for which Malden Police Chief Glenn Cronin expressed disagreement at the January meeting where it was broached — was sent to the Council’s Public Safety Committee, where it was discussed in detail, with the new resolution, passed at the last meeting, the end result.
The difference between a City Council “order” versus a City Council “resolution” — under Massachusetts law — is as follows: A Council order is a formal directive which could lead to an administrative action, potentially expanding and/or changing established policy. A Council resolution, however, is simply a declaration of the sense of the Council, its stance on a matter, support or opposition to a situation or issue.
Following is the text of Resolution 130-26, which was approved unanimously by the Malden City Council at the February 24 meeting:
Resolved: That it is the sense of the Malden City Council that no resources of the City of Malden should be used to assist with the Federal government’s responsibility for civil (non-criminal) immigration enforcement in any manner not required by law, court order, or subpoena. This includes not assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, or other Federal agencies charged with this responsibility.
The City Council asks that all city staff and representatives comply with this intent to the best of their ability and within the limits of the law. This resolution is not intended to violate any Federal law, nor shall it be interpreted to do so. We support the protections in the US Constitution for due process and condemn aggressive and inhumane tactics of ICE agents in Malden and other communities across the country. As a diverse and immigrant-rich community, we dedicate our resources to creating a safe, livable, and welcoming community for all.
The motion calling for passage of Resolution 130-26 was made by one of its original sponsors, Councillor McDonald, seconded by Councillor Winslow; voting unanimously in favor were Councillors Peg Crowe (Ward 1), Paul Condon (Ward 2), Ryan O’Malley (Ward 4), Ari Taylor (Ward 5), Winslow (Ward 6), Chris Simonelli (Ward 7), Jadeane Sica (Ward 8), Karen Colón Hayes (At Large), Michelle Luong (At Large), McDonald (At Large) and Council President Amanda Linehan (Ward 3). Councillors Colón Hayes, Sica and Simonelli requested to be added as cosponsors to the resolution as the night’s discussion continued.
Councillor McDonald spoke on the resolution before the vote. “The challenge and the need [for protection] has not gone away. The reality is right now; Malden and every other community that has a substantial immigrant population is under direct threat from our federal government,” he said.
“It is not just about what’s in the headlines — deportations, arrests, family separations are happening and have been happening in Malden at a much higher rate in the last year, since January 2025,” Councillor McDonald added. “For us as leaders, we have to be doing everything that we can, under our control, to not participate in this oppressive regime, to keep our people safe and to reduce the risk that they will be targeted by the federal government.”
“It goes against the presumption for so many generations that the feds are here to help us,” Councillor McDonald said. “I do not believe that the leadership of the federal government is here to help us. I think we are in an incredibly dangerous time and we have to be cautious.”
“We know other communities are taking action. We must take action. It became clear that there was not support in this body, our administration, to pass an order affecting policy. But this [resolution] is still important,” he added. “This is our fallback approach — that we advance something that is meaningful in our community. Our community is watching us and that this will matter.
“Thank you to everyone who engaged in this. This is such a key issue for the safety and the future of our community.”
“We need to take a public stand on unlawful actions on immigration in Malden and other communities. We do need to make a stand as a Council,” Councillor Winslow said.
Councillor Colón Hayes said residents “aren’t protected in Malden” from immigration enforcement. “For anyone watching who gets pushback that anything happening on the state level, the world level, doesn’t affect Malden, that is absolutely wrong,” Councillor Colón Hayes said. “We hear that from our constituents and it’s important to say it out loud. We aren’t protected here in Malden.”
She said she had submitted a copy to her colleagues of a report from a Malden-based agency, the Leah Zallman Center for Immigrant Health Research, located at 350 Main St., which the Councillor asserted had compiled data showing the scope and number of incidents involving immigrant law enforcement both statewide and locally in Malden.
“I’ve spoken to the Police Chief and department heads who support this paper, and I also strongly support this resolve,” said Ward 8 Councillor Sica, in requesting to be added as a cosponsor.
Ward 7 Councillor Chris Simonelli, through the Council President, asked Special Assistant to the Mayor Maria Luise to confirm the support of the Mayor’s Office for the resolve. She spoke briefly, thanking original cosponsors Councillors McDonald and Winslow, as well as Chief Cronin and all those who worked on the initiative: “Mayor [Gary] Christenson intends on issuing a statement in support of this resolve following its [anticipated] passage,” she said.
“There was a tremendous amount of work and discussion on this resolve, from the sponsors, our colleagues and a high volume of community feedback,” Council President Amanda Linehan said, just before the final vote was taken. “This is a very tense time and our voice as a Council is needed on this issue.”
Later in the meeting, the original proposal for a Council order on the matter was reread, and a 9-2 Council vote was recorded to place the Order 72-26 on file, with Councillors McDonald and O’Malley voting in opposition to that action.
Council Order 72-26 read as follows: “Order: That, as a diverse and immigrant-rich community, the limited resources of the City of Malden shall be fully dedicated to address the local needs and priorities of Malden’s residents, businesses and visitors. The goal of this order is to provide for a safe, livable and welcoming community for all. No city employees, departments, appointees, processes or representatives shall assist in fulfilling the unique and separate responsibilities of the Federal government, including immigration enforcement, or cooperate with any Federal agencies or policies contrary to the stated goal of this Order. This Order shall be followed to the maximum extent permitted by law, provided that it shall not require the City to break pre-existing contracts or agreements with Federal entities.”
Before that vote was taken, Councillor McDonald said, “There were some concerns from the Police Chief, City Treasurer and Mayor’s Office whether this version — this order — offered enough clarity for city employees and possible consequences.”
“I still feel this particular issue deserves a policy and I wish we had more time — gave this more to time to get to something stronger and more meaningful,” McDonald added.
“I was going to comment before [we voted on] the resolution, but I did not want to rain on people’s parades,” Councillor O’Malley said. “I was not in full support of this order as it was written, and I appreciated the work done in committee. We are the City Council and we do set policy and we should not be afraid of that. The resolve does not have the effect of policy.”
“While the order is not in form I would support, the amendment offered by Councillor Winslow would have been a great alternative,” Councillor O’Malley said.
