I don’t know the legal definition of a sanctuary state — or if such a definition even exists. But if Wikipedia’s definition of a sanctuary city (i.e., a government body that “limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcement of immigration law”) is any indication, then Gov. Healey crossed the sanctuary-state line yesterday with her new guidance on how “schools, child care centers, health-care facilities and places of worship” should legally and peacefully respond to ICE raids, as the Globe reports. Which is fine, I guess. But she added: “I’m taking action to do whatever I can to keep our little kids safe, to keep their parents safe, and to send a message loud and clear to ICE that they need to stay out of Massachusetts and stay out of vulnerable, sensitive spaces.” … A message loud and clear to ICE that they need to stay out of Massachusetts and stay out of vulnerable, sensitive spaces. …OK, we’re in sanctuary-state territory with that line – on top of other recent anti-ICE calls and actions by the governor involving Hanscom Field, undercover license plates, and ICE misconduct portals, etc. — despite Healey’s past denials that Massachusetts is a sanctuary state.

Fyi: I’m against the Trump administration’s ICE goon squads and the cruel mass arrests and deportations of non-criminal immigrants (as well as against the administration’s proposed crackdown on law-abiding green-card holders). But I’m also against the open-border sentiments that have animated the sanctuary-city movement for years now, an attitude that played no small part in the state squandering billions of dollars on hotel rooms for illegal migrants. Healey used to straddle the political middle-ground between the two extremes. In this election year, she’s straddling no more.