Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perth Amboy council tables proposed community-trust ordinance after extensive public comment
Summary
After hours of public testimony focused on immigration enforcement and due-process concerns, the Perth Amboy City Council voted to table a proposed community-trust ordinance and seek further revisions, including clarifications about when local police may collaborate with ICE.
Perth Amboy — The City Council on April 27 moved to table an ordinance that would establish a community trust policy consistent with PL 2026 C5 and PL 2026 C3 after residents and advocacy groups urged changes to limit police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Residents and students told the council the draft ordinance, as written, could allow local officers to hand over people to ICE on the basis of an accusation or a prior deportation order rather than a judicial warrant. "The ordinance allows for the potential for local police to commit due process violations," said Randy through a translator, urging the council to amend the measure so cooperation occurs only when ICE presents a warrant signed by a judge.
Fifteen‑year‑old Chrisa Moreno said the possibility of detention without judicial review has made her fearful of everyday activities. "I worry that an ICE agent is waiting hiding around the corner," she said, adding that families now avoid public spaces and that requiring a judicial warrant would protect due process.
Lyanna of Make the Road and Anna representing Middlesex County DSA pressed the council to close loopholes and remove broad exceptions that could affect people with DACA, TPS or other protections. "We cannot direct what ICE does," Lyanna said, "but local law enforcement can operate within clear limits."
Several other speakers, including longtime residents and immigrant-rights advocates, urged the council to strengthen the ordinance, add explicit warrant requirements and expand community legal supports. Commenters also raised concerns about protest policing and called for rapid-response legal resources.
Council members responded that they heard the public’s concerns and agreed to slow the process to allow time for consultation and redrafting. A motion to table the ordinance for further study was made and seconded; council indicated consensus to delay further action and said staff would engage stakeholders before the matter returns for additional consideration.
Next steps: Council members said they will review suggested language and meet with community groups. No final vote on the ordinance occurred on April 27.
