Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ballston Spa trustees vote down immigrant and community safety resolution after heated public debate
Summary
After an hour of public testimony and trustee debate, the Village Board narrowly defeated a local resolution limiting village participation in federal immigration enforcement, 2–3; supporters said it would protect community trust, while opponents warned of funding and timing risks.
The Ballston Spa Village Board declined to adopt an "Immigrant and Community Safety" resolution after extended public comment and trustee debate, voting 2–3 against the proposal.
Supporters including resident Mike Gormley told trustees the resolution would protect due process and reassure immigrant neighbors that local police would not be used for federal immigration enforcement. "The village police should not be involved in enforcing federal immigration law," Gormley said during public comment, urging the board to adopt the measure as a statement of values and public-safety policy.
Terry Diggory, co‑coordinator of the Saratoga Immigration Coalition and a Ballston Spa resident who works with LifeWorks Community Action, said putting policy in writing would reduce fear and help law enforcement by encouraging victims and witnesses to report crimes. "Having this policy enshrined in writing ... would be important," Diggory said.
Police Chief Dave Bush told the board the department already follows guidance from the New York attorney general and described an earlier investigation that "cleared us 100% because we did absolutely nothing wrong." He urged trustees to trust the department to handle law‑enforcement duties without additional local restrictions.
Trustees split on whether the resolution was redundant with state guidance and whether local adoption could trigger federal scrutiny. One trustee cited Department of Justice criteria and recent executive orders that could, in some cases, place jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement under increased federal review or threaten eligibility for certain federal grants. Supporters countered that the village does not rely heavily on direct federal funding and said the measure was primarily a values statement.
The resolution, as read into the record by the mayor, would have prohibited the police department from honoring immigration detainer requests and from using village resources for civil immigration enforcement except in limited circumstances (for example, when federal officials present a judicial warrant). It also would have required public documentation of any federal requests for assistance, stripped of personal identifiers.
After debate and a roll-call vote, the motion to adopt the resolution failed. The mayor and trustees who opposed the measure cited legal and financial concerns; those in favor said passing it would signal community values and protect trust between immigrant residents and law enforcement.
With the vote concluded, trustees moved on to other business, including several personnel and procurement items. The board did not indicate plans to reintroduce the resolution at a later meeting.
