Middlesex County commissioners heard extended public comment urging the board to adopt a resolution in support of the Immigrant Trust Act, a state bill that would limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, but the commissioners declined to take an official position and said they would meet with advocates who requested follow-up.

Speakers at the meeting emphasized public-safety and humanitarian arguments for county action, described recent local enforcement incidents they say illustrate the need for legal protections, and asked the commissioners to signal support by passing a formal resolution to the state legislature. Several callers said county policy had previously been stronger than current attorney general guidance and that reinstating broader county protections would restore trust between immigrant communities and local authorities.

Public commenters included residents and advocates from across the county. Irfan Kawaja of Princeton, who described an Edison Police operation on New Year’s Day 2024, told the board, “Had the immigrant trust act been enforced, none of this would have happened. None of it would have happened.” Ellen Witt, coordinator of the Dyer hotline, said the county once had a stronger policy that “was better at the time” than later state guidance and that recent pick-ups have increased calls for help. Tiffany Broderick, a Metuchen resident who volunteers with local immigrant-rights organizations, said, “This is not America,” as she urged commissioners to act.

A commissioner spoke for the board during public comment and said the board does not take formal positions on pending state legislation, noting limits on the county’s jurisdiction. Commissioners did, however, agree to receive further outreach from advocates and to meet or speak with them: “We’ll meet with them. We’ll talk with them,” a commissioner said when asked whether staff and commissioners would follow up.

Meeting participants described several concrete local concerns during public comment: accounts of ICE detentions and pick-ups in Middlesex County cities, reports from advocates of a recent spike in calls to local immigrant‑support hotlines (advocates cited at least five such calls in recent days), and a recalled prior period when the county jail held more than 100 immigration detainees. Commenters also noted that neighboring counties including Essex and Hudson have passed or publicly supported similar resolutions.

No resolution in favor of the Immigrant Trust Act was presented to the commissioners for a formal vote that evening. Instead, the meeting record shows public appeals and a pledge from commissioners to accept meetings and communications from advocates. Advocates asked the county to transmit letters of support to the state legislature during the current legislative session.

The comment period included recurring requests for two specific actions: that the county (1) pass a resolution signaling support for the Immigrant Trust Act and (2) meet with community advocates to discuss local concerns and possible county-level steps. Commissioners indicated individual members might choose to advocate personally, but said the board as a body would not take a legislative position at that time.

Advocates framed the request as both a moral and public-safety measure, saying fear of immigration enforcement discourages crime reporting and access to services. Commissioners acknowledged the concerns and directed staff to accept communications and schedule meetings with those who asked to be heard. The board did not adopt any new county policy or formal resolution during the meeting.

Looking ahead, advocates asked commissioners to return with an update and for the board to consider whether individual commissioners would use their offices to support the bill. Commissioners agreed to meet with advocates and take further communications, but they did not commit to sponsoring or adopting a county resolution during the session.