Carlisle council hears public comment on 'Community Trust and Local Autonomy' proposal; police chief discloses April 28 ICE contact

At a Oct. 1, 2025 workshop of the Borough Council of Carlisle, councilors took public comment on a proposed “Carlisle Community Trust and Local Autonomy” resolution or ordinance aimed at limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Carlisle Police Chief Landis told the council that, on April 28, members of the Carlisle Police Department contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement about a detained juvenile who had been held for a violation of the Pennsylvania motor vehicle code; ICE subsequently took custody of the juvenile.

The proposed ordinance has generated extended public comment and will return to council next week, when members may choose to adopt the text as a resolution or advertise it as an ordinance — the latter requiring a public-notice period (approximately 10 days) before a final vote. Councilors said the ordinance and the related public debate tie to the borough strategic plan language about being “welcoming” and to questions of local autonomy over policing and community trust.

Chief Landis read a prepared statement to the council and the public. He said, “Over the past 9 months, I’ve stated that the Carlisle Police does not call immigration customs enforcement, and I meant that.” He added, however, that on April 28 the department did call ICE “to seek assistance with an undocumented individual who was detained for violation of the Pennsylvania motor vehicle code” because officers were “unable to release the detained juvenile on their own” and needed someone who could assume custody. He told the council he first became aware of the ICE contact on Sept. 18 while processing a Right-to-Know request.

Landis described immediate steps the department will take: requiring officers to notify or check with department command staff (the chief, the lieutenant, or the staff sergeant) before making unanticipated arrangements with federal, state, or other law enforcement, and prioritizing interagency cooperation with children & youth services and juvenile probation on juvenile incidents. “We plan to use this matter to better inform our response,” he said.

Public comment included a mixture of opposition to and support for the proposed ordinance. Marvin Salzman (600 Noble Boulevard) said he opposed a “welcoming community” ordinance that he said would limit enforcement of federal law: “I do not support any resolution or ordinance that will make Carlisle a sanctuary community,” he said. John Werner (157 South Pitt Street), who said he helped bring the ordinance forward, argued the measure would “free local law enforcement’s hands to pursue one justice system for everyone within the borough without worrying about distant, politicized, bureaucratic stuff like people's immigration status.”

Other speakers described personal or historical reasons for supporting the ordinance or the resolution. Jesse Sherborne (537 North Hanover), a veteran, said similar ordinances had not led to legal reprisals in other Pennsylvania municipalities and argued the measure affirms community values. Amanda Smith (6 Buchanan Drive, 7 Gables) cited economic estimates and argued immigrant households contribute to local spending and taxes. Hannah Roman (613 North Hanover) read a prepared statement urging passage as consistent with the borough’s strategic plan. Karl Moll recounted living in U.S. cities with sanctuary policies and said such policies helped victims of domestic violence and trafficking feel safe reporting crimes.

Several speakers and councilors discussed procedural questions about adopting the text as a resolution (quicker to enact and repeal) versus advertising an ordinance (longer process, formal public-notice requirements). The deputy mayor explained that the resolution text and the ordinance text are the same and that voting to advertise as an ordinance at the next meeting would delay final adoption until the following public meeting.

No final council vote on the ordinance occurred at the workshop; councilors said the item may be taken up at the regular meeting next week, with options to take no action, adopt the text as a resolution that evening, or advertise it as an ordinance for later adoption.

The public record for the meeting includes emails and letters the borough said it had received and read on the subject. Councilors emphasized they will continue to accept written comments through the posted process before any final action.

Next steps: the council indicated it may vote at its next scheduled meeting to (1) adopt the text as a resolution that same evening, (2) vote to advertise the text as an ordinance (triggering the public-notice period), or (3) take no action. The council said any final vote will be publicly posted and accompanied by the usual notice requirements.