Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents present draft "welcoming" ordinance to limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement

2862603 · April 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents presented a draft ordinance aimed at clarifying how Carlisle responds to ICE and CBP requests; council asked staff to route the draft to the borough solicitor for review and tentatively scheduled further discussion for a future workshop.

John Werner and Tina Ziegler presented a draft sample "welcoming" ordinance at the April 2 borough workshop that would specify how Carlisle responds to requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

Ziegler told council the draft draws on language from the ACLU and examples used by other Pennsylvania municipalities and counties. She said the county is considering similar language and that the ordinance ‘‘specifically targets, how the borough responds to requests from immigration and customs enforcement or customs and border patrol.’’ She cited State College's 2017 ordinance and Butler County Prison's 2014 policy as comparable local examples discussed with immigration‑rights advocates.

Presenters noted the ordinance would require some up-front staff work: reviewing and updating intake forms, adjusting how police record certain information, and producing trainings. Ziegler said those are initial labor costs that then become routine once processes and trainings are in place.

Council members asked about timing and next steps. The mayor asked the presenters to send a Word version of the draft to borough staff so it could be forwarded to the borough solicitor for review. The mayor said the council would likely schedule further discussion and review in a future workshop—staff suggested a June workshop as a possible timeframe. No formal council action was taken at the workshop; the council instead directed staff to receive and review the document and return with solicitor guidance and a proposed schedule for consideration.