Beyond the Bubble: Solidarity in the Face of ICE Enforcement

Everyone is familiar with the idea of the “Amherst bubble,” that familiar sense of insulation from the rest of the world. While Amherst students entertain ideas and efforts to  “break out” from the supposedly inescapable bubble, there are threats to the insular nature of Amherst’s campus, and that the bubble is susceptible to popping: ICE activity has been reported in and around Amherst, confirmed sightings have occurred in nearby Northampton, and there have been reports of individuals taken from the town of Amherst itself. 

The Editorial Board aims to stand in solidarity with students impacted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the systems it represents. To stand in solidarity is to ask what responsibility falls on the institution — and on students who are insulated from that risk — and what we are willing to do in response. Standing in solidarity means rejecting the comfort of ignorance and recognizing that immigration enforcement operates through stealth, unpredictability, and intimidation. While detentions and deportations near Amherst have not occurred at the scale seen in other parts of the country, that difference in magnitude cannot be mistaken for immunity.

As an institution, the college should be doing more. At minimum, this means proactively sharing clear and accessible information: legal hotlines, know-your-rights guidance for interacting with ICE, etc. Because this issue affects the campus and our broader community, the college has an obligation to provide resources to protect students from this real threat. The college's unwillingness to do so, especially when considering its prompt and thorough responses to other emergencies, is indicative of a broader issue. The college will only acknowledge risk when its badness is either apolitical or generally accepted.

Our college administration, it appears, is making its decisions to foster nonvisibility. The administration will not draw attention to the college by having so-called “woke” programs, will not make public commitments, and will not appear confrontational to ensure minimal cuts in federal funding. And we understand. That’s what it takes to get by within this regime. Still, it’s not a logic the Editorial Board can support.

Amherst has recently appeared in national media, including in major outlets such as The Atlantic, and has drawn ire from conservative-leaning outlets as well. Yes, it makes sense that Amherst does not want to draw any more attention to itself, but the idea that silence preserves invisibility is no longer a reasonable excuse, if it ever was. At this point, it just seems to be a failure of the institution.

The college cannot claim neutrality here. A liberal arts education is premised on the idea that critical inquiry, ethical reasoning, and civic responsibility are inseparable. Colleges routinely assert that they exist not merely to transmit knowledge, but to help students understand power, injustice, and their own obligations to the world beyond the classroom. To treat immigration enforcement as an issue outside the college’s responsibility is to abandon those tenents when they become inconvenient. 

Institutions of higher education are not passive observers of state power. Their choices shape which risks are minimized or ignored. Neutrality, in this context, is not the absence of a position but an active decision to maintain existing power relations. If the college wishes to take seriously the values it promotes in its classrooms, then care for its most vulnerable community members cannot be treated as optional. A liberal arts college that encourages students to analyze injustice but will not respond to it institutionally expounds a hollow message. 

There is also a deeper question here that has been avoided. If ICE activity were to begin occurring on campus grounds, would that finally justify measures previously deemed “too risky,” such as broadly sharing know-your-rights information? Institutions, in general, often require crisis to authorize some sort of direct action taken, and that threshold reveals whose safety is treated as essential and whose is considered expendable. 

The administration itself helps sustain the very “bubble” it claims to resist — not only by remaining silent, but by modeling a version of civil engagement defined by distance and deferral. When institutional leaders consistently treat urgent issues as peripheral, they implicitly teach students to do the same: To wait for certainty before acting, to prioritize image over community responsibility, and to view threats as external until they mistakenly arrive at our own door. The bubble is sustained not just through lack of information, but through the habits of attention the administration cultivates — habits that encourage students to see vulnerability as someone else’s concern and risk as something that can be managed through avoidance rather than collective response.

ICE’s operations depend on people not knowing their rights, feeling isolated, or panicking under pressure. Misinformation and lack of information are active tools of control. One could argue that the college’s lack of a clear statement or easily accessible information inadvertently conditions us to accept these methods. Knowing when one has the right to remain silent, when a judicial warrant is required, and where to find immediate legal support can materially change the outcome of an encounter. It is the obligation of an institution that claims to prioritize student safety and wellbeing to make this necessary information known. Providing clear guidance, therefore, is essential. 

When one considers how the broader Amherst community has reacted to ICE, the college's inaction proves itself to be an act of government appeasement. This past week demonstrated that people are paying attention. The ICE Out protest in Amherst drew a large crowd, the teach-in filled Pruyne Lecture Hall, and many students who do not usually participate in political events chose to show up. For that moment, the idea of the “Amherst bubble” felt weaker. There was a shared sense of urgency — a recognition that what is happening beyond campus is connected to what happens here. Though, urgency fades when events no longer feel immediate. Caring must be sustained, not confined to moments of heightened visibility or outrage.

Amherst is not a bystander. It has an obligation to share information, provide resources, and act in ways that prioritize student safety over political convenience or institutional comfort. And the broader campus community is already implicated, whether or not it chooses to acknowledge that fact.

Unsigned editorials represent the views of the majority of the Editorial Board (assenting: 16; dissenting: 0; abstaining: 2)

Resources and Know-Your-Rights Information 

Access to clear, accurate information is one of the most effective tools for safety. If the college will not do so, we will provide what we can. Below, we outline key policies, rights, and resources relevant to ICE activity, with the goal of reducing confusion and empowering members of our community to make informed decisions. This is not an exhaustive list. 

This is intended to provide general information on issues involving immigration enforcement and community rights. It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for guidance from a qualified attorney. The information presented here may not address every possible situation in which individuals or communities interact with federal immigration authorities. The Amherst Student does not oversee or influence the actions of federal agencies and cannot guarantee how those agencies may act in any specific circumstance. Readers who need advice or assistance regarding a particular case or legal matter should consult with licensed legal counsel.

Institutional Policies at Amherst College

Amherst College states on a page on their website locked to the general public that it releases student information only when legally required — such as in response to a valid subpoena or court order. The Amherst College Police Department (ACPD) is tasked with protecting the safety, rights, and property of all people on campus, regardless of immigration status. ACPD does not have the authority to enforce federal immigration law and does not participate in actions with federal immigration agencies, except in limited circumstances involving criminal arrest warrants or other lawful orders.

Neither ACPD, the Community Safety Team, nor the Town of Amherst Police Department inquire into the immigration status of victims of crime, witnesses, or individuals seeking assistance. While officers investigating conduct may request standard forms of identification — such as a driver’s license, state ID, or Amherst College ID — they do not request passports, visas, or travel documents. Although students may choose to present immigration documents as identification, doing so is neither required nor requested.

On-Campus Support

Amherst College’s Office of Immigration Services (OIS), launched in January 2021, serves as a central resource for international students, students in fragile immigration statuses, and others navigating the U.S. immigration system. 

ICE Entry and Warrants: What to Know

Under most circumstances, ICE agents cannot legally enter private spaces — such as homes, private offices, or non-public areas of workplaces — without proper legal authority. Entry generally requires either a judicial warrant signed by a judge or magistrate, or voluntary consent from someone with actual or apparent authority over the space. 

It is important to be clear that, under U.S. law, immigration officers — including those working for ICE — are legally permitted to use deception during certain enforcement activities. Courts have generally upheld the use of ruses or misleading statements in civil and criminal investigations, as long as the conduct doesn’t violate constitutional protections or amount to coercion. Because of this, individuals interacting with ICE should understand that officers may not always disclose their true purpose, identity, or intentions when attempting to gather information or make an arrest.

Moreover, it is critical to understand that not all warrants are the same. A judicial warrant, signed by a judge, may authorize ICE to enter a private residence. An ICE administrative warrant, which is issued internally by ICE and signed by an ICE official, does not grant the legal authority to enter a home. If ICE agents do not present a warrant signed by a judge, individuals have the right to refuse entry.

If ICE seeks to enter a residence, a person has the right to speak through the door and ask to see the warrant before opening it, verify whether the warrant is judicial, and deny entry if it is not. 

Not all areas of campus are legally equivalent. While ICE may enter publicly accessible spaces without a warrant, non-public areas — such as residence halls, faculty offices, classrooms during instruction, and locked buildings — are protected spaces. Entry into these areas generally requires a judicial warrant or explicit consent from someone with authority over the space.

Rights During ICE Encounters

Individuals detained or arrested by ICE have constitutional and legal rights. They have the right to remain silent and are not required to answer questions about immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, or how they entered the United States. A person may state, “I am exercising my right to remain silent,” and decline further questioning until they speak with an attorney.

Detained individuals also have the right to consult with a lawyer, though the government is not generally required to provide one in immigration proceedings. Additionally, individuals have the right to refuse to sign documents. ICE may ask people to sign paperwork such as voluntary departure forms or waivers of rights; no one is required to sign anything they do not understand, and they may request time to review documents with legal counsel.

Rights of Bystanders

Bystanders also have rights during ICE enforcement actions. They may observe and record ICE officers from a reasonable distance, as long as they do not interfere. Bystanders are not required to answer questions about their own immigration status or that of others, and they may remain silent. If ICE approaches a residence where a bystander lives, that person also has the right to refuse entry without a judicial warrant.

If you witness a detention, document what you safely can, including the time, location, agency involved, and any visible badge numbers. Contact legal and community hotlines immediately. Avoid posting identifying information online without consent, as this can increase risk to the individual and their family.

Community Safety: LUCE Defense Hotline

The Luce Defense Hotline can be reached at 617-370-5023. Students and community members are encouraged to call or text the hotline if they suspect ICE or other federal agents in their area, if they witness or experience an encounter, or if they observe suspicious activity such as unmarked vehicles parked for extended periods in residential neighborhoods. The hotline also connects callers with broader community networks working collectively to keep people safe through information sharing, mutual aid, and grassroots organizing.

Other Off-Campus and Digital Safety Considerations

Online platforms, social media, and other methods of digital communication may be monitored by law enforcement agencies, including federal immigration authorities. Public posts, event pages, group chats, and shared documents can be accessed, archived, or used to identify individuals, networks, and locations — sometimes long after an event has ended.

Individuals organizing or attending gatherings may wish to be mindful about what information is shared publicly. This includes avoiding the unnecessary posting of names, addresses, meeting locations, schedules, or attendance lists on open platforms. People should also be cautious about posting photos or videos that clearly identify participants, license plates, or residential locations. Even content shared with supportive intent can be redistributed beyond its original audience and may expose others to unwanted attention or risk.

Legal and Community Support

There are several trusted organizations providing legal services, advocacy, and community support in Western and Central Massachusetts, including the Central/West Justice Center, the Berkshire Immigrant Center, the Pioneer Valley Workers Center, and the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

For legal representation, individuals may consult the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s online directory, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Department of Justice’s list of pro bono immigration legal service providers, or Immigration Law Help’s nonprofit directory. Individuals detained by ICE can be located using ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System.