Since President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, his administration has introduced a slew of changes to immigration policies, many of which have instilled fear and led to questions surrounding immigrant rights. 

“It's important to understand … that everybody has a right to privacy in their home; in their dorm room; if you live in a group shelter; if you live in an apartment with four other roommates,” assured the Chief Operating Officer for the Office for Refugees and Immigrants for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Susan Church, J.D. during a Feb. 25 “Know Your Rights” webinar. “Your home is protected by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Massachusetts and a particular law in Massachusetts called Commonwealth v. Lunn.”

The presentation, hosted by the Division of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging, focused on immigrant and refugee rights amidst recent changes and enforcement of federal immigration policies aimed at tightening the border and removing undocumented immigrants. Attendees received an overview of legal resources available to immigrants in the Commonwealth, provided know-your-rights resources and were given guidance on how to interact with immigration and law enforcement officials.

Church began the webinar by defining the different agencies under the Department of Homeland Security that are involved with immigration. Within DHS, there is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which adjudicates petitions for immigration benefits (asylum, Green cards, citizenship, special visas); U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which enforces immigration laws at ports of entry and between ports; and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, who represent DHS in immigration proceedings including investigations, detention and removal.  

The decision to open the door for ICE is a personal choice, and Church advised that decision be made in consultation with a lawyer, as “different people have different consequences.” To illustrate the range of cases, Church provided a hypothetical example where individuals may want to open the door to an ICE agent, including instances where the individual has been in the country for 15 to 20 years without documentation. If they were to go to immigration court, they might not face any severe consequences because of their long-term residence and lack of any significant criminal history. Additionally, they could potentially apply for a green card based on their long-standing residence and the hardship they would face if deported. In such cases, the person may want to consult with a lawyer and decide to open the door, as going to court might offer an opportunity to resolve their status and finally end their undocumented situation. 

On the other hand, if someone chooses not to open the door, they could be arrested by ICE a few days later outside of the home. ICE could then argue that the individual is a flight risk and should be detained. There are also situations where, if someone opens the door, they might never even see a judge because they have a removal order or are detained under mandatory detention due to a criminal charge or fraud. In these cases, the person may face immediate consequences. Additionally, Church warned that if the door is open, anyone visible to ICE officials who is also undocumented can be subject to arrest. 

If an ICE agent shows up at the door, anyone may ask the officers to identify themselves — agency, name, identification document — ask if they have a warrant signed by a judge and ask to see that warrant. In the state of Massachusetts, as a result of Commonwealth v. Lunn, ICE warrants are “not valid” nor do they grant access to homes, Church said, as they are not judicial warrants and instead are administrative orders. 

“A judicial warrant is a warrant signed by a judge issued by a court and based on probable cause and that probable cause was determined by a neutral arbiter,” Church clarified. To identify a court warrant, check if the warrant has come from a court and if it bears a signature from a federal judge, Church instructed. “ICE doesn’t have a court that issues warrants,” Church said. Additionally, federal warrants may also say “search and seizure” while ICE issues arrest warrants.

“It's really important to read these,” Church added, as they may look very similar. She adds that if the official at the door shows a legitimate judicial warrant, then the individual who the warrant is served to is legally obligated to comply with the document, or risk being charged with obstruction of justice. 

Besides requesting the officers to identify themselves and to show the warrant, every individual, regardless of their situation, has the right to remain silent and ask for an attorney. Church said if you choose to invoke that right, you should state to the officer “I request my right to silence and to an attorney.” Another way to assert these rights is to slide a “Know Your Rights” card under the door. These cards can be printed out on the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition website.

At Brandeis, Chief of Police Matthew Rushton published a Feb. 2 memorandum, informing the Brandeis community of the Department of Public Safety’s commitment to non-participation in immigration enforcement. The memorandum outlines the department's stance: "Non-Detention: We will not detain or question individuals solely based on their immigration status," and "Non-Cooperation: We will not collaborate with ICE in efforts to enforce federal immigration laws." Additionally, in his letter, Rushton states “ICE agents are not permitted to enter non-public areas of our campus, such as dormitories, offices, and classrooms, without a valid judicial warrant signed by a judge. Administrative warrants issued by ICE do not grant authorization to access these areas.” 

The department also shared its commitment to safeguarding personal information. “Any request from ICE for information about a student or staff member will be referred to the Office of General Counsel. We will ensure that any disclosure complies with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and other applicable privacy laws,” the memorandum states. Echoing the same legal framework that Church discussed, the Department of Public Safety’s policies “align with guidance from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Lunn v. Commonwealth, which prohibits law enforcement from detaining individuals solely based on federal civil immigration detainers.” 

Next in the presentation, Church noted that some individuals who have been detained by ICE and are going to immigration court can request a bond, which is similar to a bail. This process requires the individual to show they are not a flight risk or a danger to the community. According to Church, if there is no history of criminal activity that person can be deemed as not a risk to the community. However, to not be considered a flight risk requires a little more work. The individual would be required to show strong family and community ties. Church advised anyone undocumented to create a folder that has material showing their strong family and community ties. That could include evidence of being a college student — transcripts, letters of recommendation, resumes or material showing commitment to clubs. Additionally, photographs that humanize the individual to the judge should be included, Church said. 

“No matter what everyone tells you, immigration judges are human. Prosecutors are human and they are moved by human stories,” said Church. “Whatever human story you might have, put that in the folder. Put evidence of it in the folder, so that [it] can be presented in the future.”

The next portion of the webinar went over what does and doesn’t follow under public charge. Public charge, or the "public charge test," is an evaluation conducted by immigration officers when reviewing certain immigration applications. As part of this assessment, the officer considers factors such as the applicant's age, health, income and other factors to determine if the applicant is likely to become primarily dependent on government assistance in the future. If the officer concludes that the applicant may rely on government support, their immigration application could be denied based on the public charge rule. Church explained that during the first Trump administration, individuals who accessed public benefits were often labeled as a public charge, which led to individuals feeling dissuaded to use public benefits.

“The problem with that rule is not only did it cause widespread fear in the community, but it barely applied to anybody and yet people didn't understand that nuance and just stopped using benefits,” Church explained. 

Church added that this rule only applies to people applying for a work Green Card, a Green Card based on family, particularly marriage or people entering the U.S. on a visa or extending their visa. The only considerations in the public charge test are cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term nursing home care at government expense. “That means that as of today, Feb. 25th, it does not apply to Section 8 housing. [Emergency Assistance] Shelter, cash benefits like work, unemployment, Social Security. It doesn't apply to MassHealth unless it's long term. It doesn't apply to school lunches. It doesn't apply to [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] or [the Women, Infants, & Children Nutrition Program].” A full list of benefits that the rule does not apply to can be found on the MIRA Coalition website.

Earlier in the presentation, Church shared various ways individuals can come into contact with immigration enforcement. According to Church, one of the most common situations where students faced immigration enforcement during the first Trump administration was when returning from travel abroad. She explains that CBP has broad authority at the border, including the power to revoke a visa based on minimal information. Church cautions that students could find themselves in trouble if CBP determines they have immigrant intent — meaning they plan to remain in the United States permanently, even if on a temporary visa. This intent could be inferred from signs such as being in a long-term relationship with the intention to marry and apply for a Green Card. Additionally, instances of fraud can put a student in trouble, such as when CBP found evidence that immigrants had been working without authorization. 

“So if they find that information in your cellphones or in your computers or you are answering questions and you provide that information, it can be very deadly for your visa,” said Church, who noted earlier in the webinar that CBP has a right to look at individuals’ phones and laptops. “There is no mercy in this situation … If you have any questions at all it's extremely important that you talk to a lawyer before you travel.” 

Individuals can also come into contact with immigration enforcement during raids, by emails and text messages or by attending ICE appointments. Church advised that people talk to a lawyer before attending their ICE appointments or following the instructions on an email or text communication, adding that people should be “Talking to [their] lawyer, six months before [they] go to [their] ICE appointment, not six days.” The same principle applies with international travel, “because lawyers are expensive, they are hard to find and they are very very busy under this administration.” 

Immigration lawyers, experts and advocates are also watching the potential of the Laken Riley Act, which allows immigration authorities to detain individuals for minor offenses. Additionally, people seeking a Green Card based on their marriage, but also having a removal order were at risk, especially during the first Trump administration. When spouses with removal orders went to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to finalize their Green Card process, many were surprised by the coordination between ICE and USCIS to carry out arrests at USCIS offices. However, this practice was halted by a 2018 lawsuit, where in January 2025, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf gave final approval to a settlement that would for the next two years provide “class members who are not deemed to pose a public safety threat protection from ICE enforcement and a process to reopen and dismiss their removal cases,” according to an American Civil Liberties Union Massachusetts press release. Other involvement with immigration enforcement included interaction with the criminal justice system, particularly during arrests for minor offenses. During the prior Trump administration, and continuing now, individuals were arrested for offenses such as driving without a license. ICE becomes aware of individuals when they are arrested by local police and fingerprinted, Church said. These fingerprints are sent to ICE, which can be used to track the individual when they are required to appear in state criminal court. Often, ICE waits outside the courthouse to arrest the person upon their appearance. However, Church emphasized that situations where you are not fingerprinted, such as being a victim of a crime, reporting a crime, seeking a restraining order or receiving a summons to appear in state criminal court, “it doesn't have the same mechanism or enforcement that somebody who's arrested and gone to the police station does.” 

Church concluded her presentation by emphasizing the need for anyone worried about their immigration status to consult a lawyer. Although she is a lawyer, during the presentation she was not acting as a lawyer for the state. 

“Please call a lawyer and that’s because … I just have seen a lot of damage done by people trying to handle their own cases or asking a friend for advice.”