An Allegheny County Committee on Monday narrowly approved a bill to limit elected officials and county employees’ cooperation with federal immigration agents.
Council’s committee on public safety voted 4-3 on Monday to send the legislation to the full 15-member council, where it could get a vote as early as next week.
The bill was introduced in January amid escalating concerns about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in the Pittsburgh region and nationwide. It’s meant to “bring some clarity” to county employees about “what is going to fly and what is not,” said committee member Paul Klein.
“If we don’t do this, then we’re dependent upon the goodwill of the many people who work for the county to make sure that this is something that they are attentive to.”
Some individual municipalities have approved resolutions barring police from working with ICE; the county legislation would similarly forbid county agencies and row offices from working alongside ICE or entering into any agreements to enforce federal immigration law. Local government employees would also be prohibited from sharing county resources with ICE, including funding or information. Only an order from a federal judge could compel the county to share such information.
The committee also approved two amendments. One clarifies that Court of Common Pleas employees, who are part of the state court system, would be exempt from the rule. The other acknowledges that the county is obligated to share certain data with the federal government, though it wasn’t immediately clear what impact that would have on the bill’s broader purpose. It also reiterated that federal law does not require local governments to assist in immigration enforcement activities.
Klein and council members Bethany Hallam, Kathleen Madonna-Emmerling and Michelle Naccarati-Chapkis voted in favor. Suzanne Filiaggi, DeWitt Walton, and committee chair Aaron Adams voted against.
The measure has garnered visible public support: At council meetings last month, dozens of speakers urged council to pass the bill. Many of those advocates attended the standing-room-only committee meeting on Monday.
Committee members debated the legislation for more than an hour before the vote. They were split on whether the bill was even necessary, as some county departments already have similar anti-collaboration policies in place and have told council they do not assist ICE.
Supporters said it was important to enshrine the principle in legislation.
“Just because a policy says one thing does not mean that it is set in stone,” said Hallam. “Row officers change, elected officials change, department heads change.”
Hallam also voiced concerns that some deputies go beyond the stated noninterference policy. She said deputies at the courthouse have told lawyers “not to tell [their] client that ICE is waiting for them.” Some deputies, she alleged, have moved people at the courthouse “into other rooms … so that they can wait for ICE to come and pick them up.”
Mike Manko, a spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Office, denied that, telling WESA the office “has not and does not enforce immigration laws.” He also said deputies don’t “take individuals into custody on behalf of ICE” or “sequester or detain individuals for the purpose of immigration enforcement.”
Those opposed to the bill argued that the issue was moot without “concrete evidence” county departments have cooperated with ICE. And though they said they too had been “appalled” by ICE incidents across the country, they were skeptical council’s bill could assuage those concerns.
“I stand with all of the people in all of our districts who fear going out without their passports because they might have to show proof of citizenship,” said Filiaggi, council’s lone Republican. “That is Nazi Germany, and that is the Soviet Union. But that is not what this legislation is taking care of.”
Filiaggi added that the bill could put an unwelcome spotlight on Allegheny County and prompt the Trump administration to threaten federal funding.
“We have a president who is vengeful,” she said. “And they are continuing to come at every municipality that they view as an enemy by withholding funding.”
Adams struck a similar note, saying that while he did not support the Trump Administration’s approach, “I believe that the cons outweigh the pros” of passing the bill.
Five additional amendments from Adams and Filiaggi were not discussed on Monday, but could be introduced at the next council meeting.
County Executive Sara Innamorato has said she will sign the bill if it reaches her desk.