Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany County approves limits on cooperation with ICE and bars county‑funded use of deportation carriers
Summary
After a contentious public comment period and hours of floor debate, the Albany County Legislature on March 9 passed two measures: one prohibiting county payments to airlines used for deportation flights and a second restricting county cooperation with ICE and Border Patrol, with opponents warning of public‑safety risks and supporters citing alleged federal abuses.
The Albany County Legislature voted to approve two related measures intended to limit the county’s role in federal immigration enforcement.
The first, resolution 54, bars the county from using public funds to do business with airlines engaged in deportation flights. The second, resolution 55, restricts local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol, prohibits entry into 287(g) deputization agreements, and prevents county property — including jail facilities — from being used as staging or detention sites for federal civil immigration operations.
The votes followed a lengthy public comment period and more than an hour of floor debate. A number of residents and advocates urged passage: Tiana Huitt, identifying herself as a naturalized citizen, told legislators, “I, as a naturalized American citizen, should not be afraid to walk to the bus stop without my passport,” and urged support for both resolutions. Mariana Ashalug of Indivisible Albany urged tightening resolution 54 to apply retroactively to Jan. 1, 2025, and to remove an expiration date in resolution 55, saying the current draft contains “loopholes that must be closed to be effective.”
Supporters on the floor framed resolution 55 as a public‑safety and civil‑rights safeguard. The resolution’s sponsor said the measure aims to protect public safety and the rule of law in Albany County while making clear the sheriff and county agencies will continue to comply with federal law where required. The sponsor cited section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and said the resolution would prohibit the sheriff’s office from entering agreements that deputize local officers to perform federal civil‑immigration enforcement.
Opponents argued the measures would impede coordination with federal law enforcement and could expose the public to risk. Retired corrections officer Dave Singley, speaking during public comment in opposition to both measures, said cooperation with federal partners is necessary for public safety. Several legislators warned that limiting local cooperation could force federal enforcement actions into neighborhoods rather than within controlled facilities, increasing danger to residents.
Roll calls recorded the outcomes: resolution 54 passed 31–7; resolution 55 passed 29–9.
The measures do not, according to the resolution text and sponsor remarks, block the sheriff from responding to federal judicial warrants. The sponsor noted that when ICE obtains a judicial warrant, ICE can take custody of a person in county facilities, and that the resolution is not intended to change obligations under existing federal law.
What happens next: The resolutions as approved direct county policy but do not change federal immigration law. Supporters said they expect the county to adopt implementing language and to monitor federal actions; opponents said the proper remedy for disputed federal policy is federal legislation or litigation. The legislature moved on to dozens of other routine and budgetary items after the votes.
