Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly passes records‑and‑sensitive‑places trio to limit ICE cooperation and state data collection
Summary
The Assembly passed three related bills: designating certain locations off‑limits to federal immigration enforcement, restricting state collection and sharing of immigration status and personal identifiers, and codifying the AG's immigrant‑trust directive. Supporters framed the bills as protections for families and access to services; opponents warned of public‑safety and law‑enforcement consequences. Tally: A6308 (48‑23), A6309 (47‑26), A6310 (46‑26).
Trenton — After an often emotional floor debate, the Assembly approved three measures that reshape how state and local entities interact with federal immigration enforcement and how they handle certain personal data.
The first measure, Assembly Bill 63‑08, designates a set of "sensitive places" — including schools, hospitals, shelters and places of worship — where assistance to federal immigration enforcement is restricted. It passed 48‑23. Sponsor Assemblywoman Park said the bill "set[s] meaningful boundaries to keep ICE out of sensitive places" and argued the steps protect families, children and access to care. (Transcript: SEG 4210–4224.)
A second bill, Assembly Bill 63‑09, limits state and local agencies from collecting and disclosing immigration status and other identifying data except in narrowly defined circumstances; it passed 47‑26. Supporters stressed privacy safeguards and access to services; opponents warned the provision could become a broad shield that impedes investigations into serious crimes. Assemblywoman Fantasia recounted a local example from Sussex County and argued federal cooperation had prevented continued danger in one case. (Transcript: SEG 4348–4360.)
A third related measure, Assembly Bill 63‑10, codifies the Attorney General's immigrant‑trust directive restricting certain information exchanges with federal officers. That bill passed 46‑26 after extended debate that repeatedly referenced the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on information sharing and local public‑safety concerns. (Transcript: SEG 4618–4645, SEG 5640–5644.)
Opponents called the bills a step backward for public‑safety coordination and said they risked creating information "blind spots"; supporters said the measures were calibrated to protect vulnerable residents and maintain community trust in service providers. Multiple members urged more committee hearings and wider input; others said the votes reflected urgent policy choices about who the state protects and how. (Transcript: SEG 4209–5660.)
With the Assembly’s passage, the bills will proceed through the normal post‑passage process toward the governor.
