Public testimony presses Lackawanna County commissioners to adopt 'Protect Our Neighbors' ordinance; request to release solicitor memo fails

Dozens of residents on March 4 told the Lackawanna County Board of Commissioners that the proposed "Protect Our Neighbors" ordinance is needed to protect immigrant neighbors from what several speakers described as fear-inducing federal enforcement actions.

The public-comment session — which drew multiple personal testimonies and faith-based appeals — focused on limiting local use of county resources for civil immigration enforcement and preserving trust between local government and immigrant communities. "Our neighbors will not live in fear of the people who are paid to serve them," said Jessica McGuigan, a licensed counselor, urging the board to "vote yes on the protect our neighbors ordinance." Sarah Balmer of Covington Township described a case she said involved a student detained by ICE, and asked the commissioners, "Please do something." Several speakers tied the request to local history, public safety and moral arguments, including Father John Siblon, who said the proposal seeks to protect constitutional guarantees "that our migrants of today" should share with prior generations.

Commissioners were also urged to make public a legal memorandum from the county solicitor's office that several speakers and one commissioner said had been provided to commissioners earlier that morning. One commissioner moved to waive attorney-client privilege for the memo so the public could review the legal analysis; after discussion the motion "received no second," and the motion did not proceed. Solicitor Walker told the board that staff should have internal discussions first.

Supporters repeatedly cited local examples and regional developments: Jenny Gonzales and others warned of local police being approached to enter federal agreements and pointed to 287(g)-style partnerships as a model that can undermine community trust. Speakers also referenced news reports about a paused 287(g) agreement in a nearby borough and expressed concern about large regional detention capacity being developed outside the county.

Commissioner remarks reflected a balance between the public pressure to act and the need to resolve legal and operational questions before formal adoption. One commissioner said the board had received a confidential legal memo at 8:30 a.m. and pressed for transparency; other commissioners and the solicitor warned about potential legal risks in ordinance language, including claims that it could duplicate or conflict with federal law or expose employees to liability if not carefully drafted.

The board did not vote on the ordinance. Commissioners said they would meet with counsel, review the solicitor's analysis and aim to return to the public with revised language and legal guidance at a future meeting. The meeting adjourned without the ordinance being adopted.