After more than three hours of public comment and debate Tuesday, Allegheny County Council approved a measure to limit information sharing between most county employees and federal immigration agents.
Council member Bethany Hallam introduced the bill in January, following a Trump administration immigration crackdown both locally and nationwide. While some municipalities have stayed silent on whether or not police should be barred from working with immigration authorities, Hallam’s measure sought to ally the county with a handful of local governments that restrict cooperation with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Hallam said the measure, which will cover the county’s nearly 6,000 employees, is meant to give teeth to the formal policies and informal practices that currently exist across government.
“Our job is to create laws, not non-binding resolutions, not policies from the different row offices,” Hallam told her fellow council members before Tuesday’s vote. Existing practices “are all fine and dandy,” she said, but ensuring they’re codified in law provides stability.
The bill forbids agencies, row offices, and government employees from sharing county resources — including funding or information — with ICE. Only a court order or a state or federal law could compel the release of such information. (However, many Court of Common Pleas employees, who are part of the state court system, are exempt from the rule.)
Proponents said they could not sit idly by as ICE tactics tore holes in the community fabric.
Council member Nick Futules said that though council cannot stop ICE from carrying out enforcement actions, “the spirit of the bill is important.”
“In my heart I had Jose Flores from Oakmont — taken when he was getting his daughter ready for school,” said Futules, who represents that community, before the vote. “He was my neighbor and I know him. He works at Oakmont Bakery. Randy Cordova Flores from Springdale was also taken in my district. How horrible is that?” Futules said he had another friend who, although an American citizen, “lives in fear. He carries his passport with him because he’s afraid that ICE will pick him up.”
“On behalf of these three people, I’m a yes vote for this bill,” Futules said.
Hallam and Futules joined Council members Jordan Botta, Dan Grzybek, Paul Klein, Kathleen Madonna-Emmerling, Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis, John Palmierie, Bob Palmosina, Alex Rose and Lissa Geiger Shulman in backing the measure. Three of council’s more conservative members voted no: Republican Suzanne Filiaggi and Democrats Aaron Adams and DeWitt Walton.
Walton, one of the bill’s most vocal critics, called the measure “fundamentally worthless.”
“I don’t believe that ICE agents are going to give a damn on whether we pass this ordinance or not,” he said.
Instead, he argued council would be better off “ drafting a resolution to clearly state wherever ICE violates a person’s civil rights, legal rights, they violate Pennsylvania criminal code, we arrest their ass. Lock them up.”
Council President Pat Catena abstained. He said a person came to his house and threatened his and his family’s lives ahead of the vote.
Catena, who participated in the meeting by phone, said he notified law enforcement of the threat. He did not disclose the person’s position on the bill, but said the threat “crosses a line that should alarm every single person that believes in democracy.” He said he was abstaining because he refused “to allow anyone to claim that threats or intimidation had any influence over the democratic process or the outcome of my decision.
“If the goal of this threat was to silence me or intimidate this council, clearly you can see that it has failed,” he added.
Prior to final passage of the bill, members voted down an amendment that would have added a 2029 expiration date unless reapproved. They also vetoed an amendment requiring employees to seek and follow the advice of the county law department if approached by ICE. Additional changes proposed by Adams and Filiaggi would have excluded the Sheriff’s Office and other county row offices. But Adams and Filiaggi, seeing the majority was against them, withdrew them after only brief discussion.
The ICE ban has amassed public support since its introduction more than two months ago. Dozens of residents have spoken in favor of it, even when it wasn’t on the agenda. Many advocates returned to a packed County Courthouse Tuesday evening to reiterate their position.
“How can we feel safe using county services if we can’t trust [county employees] with our personal information?” asked Aden Halpern, a University of Pittsburgh PhD student.
Opponents who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting said the measure would make residents less safe, and cited religious arguments.
“Do not attempt to be kinder than God by opening up the borders of this county,” said Aaron Pratt, a leader with Redeemer Church of South Hills. “Be men. Honor God. Don’t give in to empathy.”
The Republican Committee of Allegheny County condemned the vote in a statement released shortly afterward, calling the policy “reckless, politically motivated, and harmful to public safety.”
In a statement, County Executive Sara Innamorato said she plans to sign the bill, but urged caution.
“It is important to remember that even with the passage of this ordinance, local governments, including Allegheny County, cannot stop ICE’s presence here. My administration will continue to work alongside immigrant and refugee serving organizations to support their work. We all must stay vigilant in supporting our immigrant and refugee neighbors.”
“Legislation alone will not fully address the concerns” residents have about ICE, agreed Jaime Martinez of the immigrant-rights group Frontline Dignity. “The county should provide clearer guidance to employees interacting with federal immigration authorities, increase transparency around any interactions with immigration enforcement, and engage community organizations in monitoring how these policies function in practice.”
Still, he said, the bill asserts “an important principle: Federal law does not require local governments to participate in immigration enforcement. That affirmation matters, and we believe the legislation moves Allegheny County in the right direction.”