Lackawanna County adopts enforcement policy on federal immigration inquiries after heated public comment

Lackawanna County’s board of commissioners voted April 15 to adopt a new policy governing how county employees should respond when federal immigration agents request records, access or assistance, following a lengthy public comment period marked by sharply divided views.

The policy, approved in Resolution 26‑0116, directs county staff who receive requests from federal immigration authorities to notify supervisors, consult the county solicitor and coordinate with the chief of staff before taking action. Commissioners framed the measure as clarifying legal obligations and creating a consistent internal process rather than authorizing cooperation beyond what the law requires.

“Where there was previously no framework, this policy provides guidance and a process so employees do not act on their own without legal oversight,” a commissioner said during debate, describing the approach as a step forward while acknowledging the board remained divided. Supporters argued it balances public safety with protections for immigrants; opponents warned it could impede law enforcement or expose the county to political or legal consequences.

Public speakers pressed the board from both sides. Tim Kelly, who identified himself during public comment as a critic of the draft, said the policy’s reliance on staff and solicitor judgment left too much discretion and could fail in confrontational situations when agents demand records or make immediate arrests. “I would hope you do not pass this ordinance as it stands. Consider it more, put more teeth into it,” Kelly said.

Will Cohen, who presented 16 letters from local students, urged the county to state explicitly that it will respond only to judicial warrants. “This policy should include what's going to happen: the county will only respond when legally required with a judicial warrant,” Cohen said, calling administrative warrants requests, not mandates.

Jenny Gonzalez, another public commenter and advocate for the Protect Our Neighbors ordinance, said the board should expressly bar the collection of citizenship or immigration data and clarify that administrative warrants are not sufficient to grant access to records. “Our goal ... has been to prevent exploitation and abuse that happens when people are too afraid to call the police,” Gonzalez said.

Commissioners said they had considered a range of views and legal advice. One commissioner, who had sponsored an earlier Protect Our Neighbors ordinance, said the policy does not go as far as that ordinance but represented a workable first step that could be amended in the future. The board voted to adopt the measure; the official roll-call allocation of individual votes was not clearly recorded in the live transcript, which records at least one dissent and the chair’s announcement that the resolution passed.

County officials emphasized the policy’s operational effect is to create a consistent chain of review rather than to prevent lawful cooperation. Staff and department heads will be the first internal contacts when an agent requests records; the solicitor will advise on legal obligations before the county provides records or detention assistance.

Next steps discussed at the meeting included continuing conversation with community groups and attorneys to refine the policy language and potential amendments in future sessions. Commissioners and several public commenters said they expect further revisions as the county responds to community input and legal developments.

The meeting concluded with the board urging continued dialogue; commissioners said they appreciated the volume and passion of testimony from residents, advocacy groups and public-safety voices.