Community advocates and residents urged the Middlesex County Board of Commissioners to adopt a formal resolution supporting the Immigrant Trust Act (ITA), saying written local approval would strengthen protections for immigrants beyond the state attorney general’s immigrant trust directive (ITD).

Speakers at the board’s public-comment period repeatedly asked commissioners to place the ITA on a future agenda and to vote in favor. Asma, an organizer who said she represents Resuscencia in Accion, New Jersey, told the board that “delaying or refusing to pass an ITA resolution does not keep this county neutral; it actually harms the immigrants,” and recounted intervening during an ICE enforcement action in August.

Jessica DeFalco, who identified herself as an organizer for NJ 50 51 and a rapid responder for Ascencia, described confronting ICE agents in Hightstown and said, “If I can have the bravery to do that, I’m asking you to be brave and pass this ITA resolution.” Ellen Witt, who coordinates a hotline that fields calls about ICE activity, said her program has received hundreds of calls and called for a “simple resolution” of support.

Speakers cited recent enforcement actions in the county, with several commenters referencing three local raids they said occurred in July, August and late October and urging that a resolution would send a message to state lawmakers and protect families. Irfan Khawaja argued the ITA concerns county governance and invoked anti‑commandeering principles to say the commissioners have a legal and constitutional interest in supporting protections for residents.

The board’s chair and staff told the meeting they share the legislation’s values and highlighted existing county practices. The director stated the county limits collection of personally identifying information, does not share data with federal agencies except when required by law, and works with the state Office of New Americans and partner organizations to support immigrants. The director also told the public that the county typically does not use public meetings to lobby other levels of government.

Multiple commissioners expressed sympathy and said they were listening, but no commissioner moved to place the ITA resolution for a vote at the meeting. The session ended with routine closing motions and an adjournment; advocates said they will continue to press the board in future meetings.

What happens next: Commissioners did not vote on an ITA resolution at this meeting. Advocates in the room said they plan to return and continue pushing for the county to adopt a formal resolution in support of the law.

(Reporting note: quotes and speaker attributions come from public comments and the board’s remarks recorded during the meeting.)