Lehigh County Executive Josh Siegel expects to introduce a controversial bill next month that seeks to prohibit county employees from helping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
The resolution was on the agenda for Wednesday’s Lehigh County Board of Commissioners meeting, but was pulled at Siegel’s request because, he said, he wanted to work on more pressing issues facing the county this month, including a mail in ballot error that is affecting some voters in next week’s primary election.
“I wanted to focus my time and attention on things that need to be done before the primary. There’s no issue with the resolution, I just don’t have the bandwidth this week to give it the attention it deserves and we look forward to reintroducing it next month,” Siegel said.
Under the proposed rule, county employees will not be permitted to give out non-public or personally identifiable information about any person to federal immigration agencies or officers unless they’re under a subpoena, court order or warrant, or the disclosure was reviewed and approved by the county solicitor.
Employees will be subject to mandatory training on the new rule, and could face serious consequences if they don’t comply, including termination, according to the resolution.
The purpose of the resolution, it states, is to create consistent procedures for responding to immigration enforcement officials, clarify employee roles and ensure compliance, as well as “maintain trust between county government and the diverse communities it serves,” and “protect the privacy, dignity, and due process rights of all individuals who interact with county government.”
The proposed policy will apply to Lehigh County employees in departments overseen by Siegel’s office, but won’t include court employees or row officers.
It’s not the first time Siegel has targeted ICE in the county. In January, the newly sworn in county executive announced that he was going to “deport” the agency from a county building over unpaid rent.
Although a vote on the resolution was postponed Wednesday, public comment on it was permitted because it was listed on the agenda. Mike O’Hare, a Bethlehem resident and member of the Lehigh County Board of Elections, spoke against the policy, saying it was unfair to county employees.
“I don’t think it can apply to the Sheriff’s Department, it can’t apply to the courthouse, it can’t apply to the district attorney’s office, but it applies to the janitor, who’s out mopping the floors. Suppose an ICE agent comes in, and the janitor shows them where the bathroom is — he could get fired,” he said.
O’Hare read a list of people he said were undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, and said the policy would make Lehigh County less safe.
“Trying to say the county should not cooperate with ICE is putting all of us in a worse position. And so I would advise the commissioners to figure out a way you can do this, in a way that holds your values, but yet still you’re cooperating and communicating with the proper agencies.” he said.
The resolution reads, in part: “County employees shall interact with federal immigration agencies and agents in a way that complies with applicable federal and state law, protects individual rights, and preserves public trust in County government. It is the policy of Lehigh County that during scheduled work hours county employees do not engage in the enforcement of federal immigration law, except where expressly required by law, and that all interactions with federal immigration agencies and agents occur in accordance with this policy and under the guidance of the county solicitor.”
Several other cities, including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, recently passed legislation prohibiting city employees and agencies from collaborating with federal immigration authorities. These so-called “Ice Out” resolutions also seek to ban immigration enforcement officials from entering many city-owned properties.
If passed, county employees will be required to notify their supervisor if they’re approached by ICE agents looking for information, and the supervisor must seek advice from the solicitor’s office.