Luzerne County Council Considers New Immigration and Anti-Discrimination Ordinances
In a significant move, two proposed ordinances addressing immigration enforcement and anti-discrimination practices are currently under review by the Luzerne County Council. These legislative initiatives, submitted by City Councilwoman Joanna Bryn Smith, aim to reshape the county’s approach to critical social issues.
For any ordinance to progress, at least four of the council’s eleven members must advocate for its discussion. This step leads to a public hearing and a final majority vote that must occur for the bill to be enacted into law. The immigration ordinance was notably addressed during last week’s parliamentary work session, positioning it for introduction at the upcoming voting session scheduled for April 28. Additionally, a majority of council members agreed last week to introduce the anti-discrimination ordinance, which will also be discussed at the next working session.
The immigration ordinance proposed by Bryn Smith is designed to restrict county employees and resources from participating in federal immigration enforcement, unless explicitly mandated by law. Bryn Smith emphasized that there has been no indication of any collaboration between Luzerne County’s District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She pointed out the inherent challenges in controlling elected officials’ actions, highlighting that elected officials would be exempt from certain provisions of the proposed laws.
During his annual report to Congress in March, County Attorney Sam Sanguedolce discussed the 287(g) partnership program with ICE. He reassured attendees that local prosecutors remain focused on serious criminal cases and are not dispatching detectives to pursue individuals solely on immigration grounds. Bryn Smith circulated a draft of the ordinance on luzernecounty.org prior to the council’s agenda meeting, clarifying that it formally states that federal immigration enforcement is not a responsibility of the county. It further argues that utilizing county resources for immigration enforcement is incompatible with the county’s duties to its residents.
The ordinance outlines specific prohibitions, which encompass a range of activities. These include requesting information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status without a court order or applicable law, facilitating federal programs that register individuals based on race or other attributes, and detaining individuals based on immigration-related documentation. Furthermore, any assisting in ICE operations must be duly reported and documented.
Bryn Smith expressed her intent to safeguard county workers and to prevent county funds from supporting activities deemed outside of their remit, which could expose the county to potential legal challenges. She cited a recent lawsuit faced by Lehigh County Jail, which was blamed for an unauthorized extended detention at the request of federal agents as a cautionary example.
Amid discussions, Councilor Dennis Williams emphasized the need for clarity in the language surrounding background checks. Current provisions would permit foreign-issued photo IDs, raising concerns about voter eligibility. Williams also raised the issue of any existing agreements with ICE for detainee housing, to which Councilman Steve Coslett confirmed that no such agreements are in place. County Commissioner Romilda Crocamo reiterated that the county will not transfer inmates to ICE without proper documentation.
The second ordinance under consideration seeks to establish human relations commissions aimed at addressing discrimination complaints across the county. This proposal defines discrimination as varied actions based on an individual’s status within a protected class, touching upon areas such as employment and housing. By requiring counties to investigate claims, the legislation aims to foster greater accountability and redress within the community.
Although the ordinances have generated considerable debate, including criticism from local residents during public comments, proponents believe they provide necessary protections. Critics, however, argue that such introductions could lead to a backlash against perceived partisan actions. The council’s decision-making process will continue to unfold over the coming weeks, with discussions scheduled for later meetings.
For ongoing updates on these legislative proposals, stay tuned to local news channels.
Contact Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or follow her on Twitter.
