The mayor gets an “invitation”

Given the onslaught of news coming at us, here is a tidbit you may have missed. The House Oversight Committee is “inviting” Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to testify at a hearing on immigration and sanctuary cities. They say that sanctuary jurisdictions such as Boston make “Americans less safe”, and they clearly want Mayor Wu to answer for the city’s commitment to keeping its immigrant populations from being persecuted by the federal government.

Mind you, Boston is one of the safest cities in the whole country. We actually just got a whole lot of press for that, noting that in 2024 we saw the lowest number of shooting deaths since Boston started tracking the figure. So this demand is egregious, it’s disingenuous, and just plain offensive.

Let’s examine what has helped create a safer Boston.

First of all, Boston doesn’t exist in a bubble. The city benefits from Massachusetts’ long history of strong gun laws and investment in violence prevention initiatives. This is something I think about a lot — I run the state coalition against gun violence in Massachusetts. I am very proud of the work we have done here and MA’s commitment to addressing gun violence. This phenomenon is not a random accident. Data shows us that states with strong gun laws and lower rates of gun ownership also see much lower rates of gun violence (Violence Policy Center).

To be clear, one death from guns is too many. But we are showing that we have a blueprint in Massachusetts that is working, resulting in the lowest per capita rate of gun deaths in the entire country. Massachusetts also gets an A grade from Giffords, one of the largest national gun violence prevention organizations, for the strength of our gun laws.

There is no doubt that the state landscape on guns and gun violence contributes to the safety of Boston’s residents. But extremist politicians and the NRA want to weaken gun laws in all states. Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would allow people with a concealed carry license from one state to carry a concealed handgun in any other state. It would also allow residents of states with permitless carry to carry a firearm in other states. Both of these provisions would serve to override our restrictions on gun carrying in MA, effectively weakening the laws that are working to keep our rates of gun violence low. The local arm of the NRA is currently trying to repeal our recently passed gun law through a ballot initiative. A law that I, along with many other activists and survivors, worked hard to get passed.

Basically meaning that extremist politicians, like the ones “inviting” Mayor Wu to testify, are actively working to make Massachusetts, and therefore Boston, less safe.

Boston also benefits from a strong network of organizations doing community violence intervention (CVI) work. Organizations that provide a range of prevention and intervention services such as trauma response, street outreach, homicide bereavement, vocational and educational programs, etc. Organizations that were sent into panic just last week with the threatened freeze on federal grants. And while that freeze has since been rescinded, I don’t think anyone in the CVI world is feeling confident that this funding is safe in the long run. In fact, Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that Trump’s funding freeze would "remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented." While we don’t yet know exactly what that means, what we do know is that any disruption in funding would have a profound impact on programs being able to reach people and communities most impacted by gun violence and therefore on communal safety.

Again, extremist politicians actively making us less safe.

Another great thing about Boston? Boston city government has staff dedicated to violence prevention and intervention. We used to have that at the White House too, with amazing staff working diligently on a national response to gun violence. Until the day after the inauguration, when Trump dismantled the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Which makes us all less safe.

So tell us again how Mayor Wu’s stance on immigration is impacting public safety. Explain to us why extremist politicians seem hell bent on dismantling the very policies and programs that DO make Boston one of the safest cities in the country. I’d like to understand.

And I am curious about how these extremist politicians came to choose Boston. I can’t help but notice that they’re targeting a city run by an outspoken woman of color who happens to be the child of immigrants. Somehow, that doesn’t feel coincidental.

But it sure isn’t for our safety.

I honestly would welcome the House Oversight Committee to invite mayors to a hearing on safe cities. I would love to hear a robust conversation on the strategies that decrease violence and promote communal wellbeing. Maybe their agenda could include identifying strategies to curb the flow of guns, resourcing community led prevention programs, increasing housing stock, doubling down on anti-poverty initiatives, and supporting youth access to education, employment, and safe recreation. It could explore how investing in the communities that have been most impacted by gun violence offers a path to peace. The hearing wouldn’t demonize immigrants, because that doesn’t keep anyone safe. It would instead examine how to best support immigrants who have come to this country, many of whom fled violence at home. Violence, mind you, that is too often fueled by guns. Guns made right here in the United States.

What the hearing would also do is call out the policies and rhetoric that foment hate and target vulnerable populations as being the antithesis of communal safety. Rhetoric that demonizes immigrants and assigns criminal intent to entire communities of people. Policies that seek to erase trans folks from existence.

Sanctuary policies do not cause violence — quite the opposite. First of all, immigrants do not commit more crimes than people born in the United States. In fact, immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people. Another important factor to consider is that sanctuary policies are actually an important component of stopping violence. Immigrants will not call the police if they fear detention or deportation. This barrier results in making immigrants more vulnerable to being targeted by crime or violence, as they lack options for safety. Many years ago I cowrote an op/ed with a local city councilor about the importance of sanctuary policies for victims of domestic violence. Imagine being abused by a partner and knowing that if you call the police you are likely to be deported. Imagine having your abusive partner hold that threat over you at all times. We pushed the local paper to run our op/ed to no avail. Their unwillingness to print the piece, and the city council’s subsequent failure to pass the policy served to make the community less safe.

So a note to the House Oversight Committee: enough. Your grandstanding on public safety is a farce. I’ll send the same note to the congresspeople — Republicans and Democrats alike — who voted for the Laken Riley Act, which not just punishes immigrants convicted of crimes, but ACCUSED of crimes. Enough. Criminalizing immigrants is not safety. Strong gun laws, robust investment in community violence intervention, policies that affirm and care for all people, meeting basic needs like housing, education and employment — that’s what safety looks like. And if you are not fighting for all of those things, please get out of the way of those of us, including the mayors, who are.