Immigration and anti-discrimination ordinances are before Luzerne County Council

Two new proposed ordinances related to immigration and discrimination are now before Luzerne County Council.

Councilwoman Joanna Bryn Smith proposed both ordinances.

At least four of the 11 council members must introduce proposed ordinances to keep them on the table and advance for further discussion, with a public hearing and final majority passage required for legislation to take effect.

The immigration one was discussed at last week’s council work session, meaning it could be up for possible introduction at council’s next voting meeting April 28.

A council majority voted last week to introduce the anti-discrimination ordinance and then discuss it at the next work session.

Immigration

Bryn Smith said this ordinance would prohibit county staff and resources from involvement in federal immigration enforcement unless they are expressly required by law.

It does not address county District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce’s partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, she said.

“We can’t control elected officials,” she said.

The draft ordinance said elected offices are excluded from the county agencies that would have to comply.

County DA Sam Sanguedolce had discussed his participation in the ICE partnership program known as 287(g) during his annual public report to council in March. The DA reiterated he is focused on cases involving criminals and is not sending detectives “out to harass and harangue people in the public.”

A copy of Bryn Smith’s updated draft of the proposed ordinance was posted separate from council’s April 14 agenda at luzernecounty.org.

According to the document:

It codifies “what was already clear under law: that federal immigration law is not the responsibility of the county” and that spending county resources on immigration enforcement “runs contrary to the county’s values and responsibilities to its residents.”

With the exception of elected county offices, the ordinance said it would apply to every county department, commission, committee, and board. It also applies to County Council, although its members are elected.

Barred activities would include:

• Requesting information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status unless such inquiry or investigation is required by court order or state or federal law. Applications for county benefits and services would have to be reviewed to delete such questions — if any — within 60 days of the ordinance passage.

• Facilitating the creation, publication, or maintenance of any federal program to register individuals present in the United States based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or national or ethnic origin.

• Detaining someone based on an immigration detainer, administrative warrant, other immigration enforcement document, or suspicion that person is is not presently legally in the U.S. or has committed an immigration violation.

• Supporting or assisting ICE or other agencies with immigration enforcement operations. Any requests for help must be reported to supervisors and documented.

Bryn Smith told her colleagues the ordinance provides clarity for workers and would prevent county tax dollars from funding work “outside our scope” that could subject the county to liability if there is a legal challenge.

She said a jail in Lehigh County was held liable in litigation for holding someone four extra hours without authority at the request of federal agents.

Councilwoman Denise Williams said wording must be revised in a section related to identification. The current wording states the county shall accept photo identity documents issued by a foreign government, and Williams said that would not be permissible for those registering to vote.

Bryn Smith said she will clarify that point.

Williams also referenced its prohibition on agreements with ICE to house detainees, asking if the county has such an agreement.

Councilman Steve Coslett said he spoke with the county correctional services division head, and there are no such agreements in place.

County Manager Romilda Crocamo said the county does not “hand prisoners over to ICE” — or any outside entity — unless it has the proper paperwork requiring the county to do so.

If the ordinance is approved, the county administration must provide copies to all covered entities and provide training.

Even if the county is not engaging in any activity prohibited by the proposed ordinance at this time, Bryn Smith said council should have policies in place for the future. Anticipating arguments the ordinance is duplicative or not needed, she counters that policy also can be symbolic.

“When we codify words, we’re saying this matters to us. What our leaders say matters,” she said.

Two citizens — Ben Herring, of Duryea, and Joe Granteed, of Plains Township — were highly critical of the proposed ordinance during public comment last week.

Herring said it should be labeled the “anti-ICE ordinance” and described the council discussion about it as “ignorance, illiteracy, activist legal theory and downright anti-American rhetoric.”

He maintained the first four months of a Democratic council majority has been “hyper-partisan” and said there will and should be backlash if it continues introducing “crap like this.”

Granteed said the proposal was “a disgrace” and that the priority should be “protecting legal residents.”

Bryn Smith had proposed an election protection ordinance in January that prompted extensive council and public debate before it failed to pass, with only Bryn Smith and Councilman Chris Belles supporting it.

Supporters said the ordinance would expand law enforcement’s options to protect election workers from harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and the malicious public release of private information.

Critics asserted laws already are on the books for such crimes and that the wording of the new ordinance could subject those expressing election-related concerns to retaliation and stifle their right to free speech.

Anti-discrimination

This proposed ordinance would require the county to create a human relations commission to adjudicate discrimination complaints.

It defines discrimination as any “exclusion, denial, intimidation, coercion, difference, or segregation in treatment” due to someone’s “membership in a protected class” in areas that include employment, housing for sale or rent, healthcare, education, and services in “places of public accommodation.”

Public accommodations accept or solicit the patronage of or offer goods or services, including loans, to the general public, it said.

The proposal lists the following under the protected class definition: actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, creed, national origin or citizenship status, ancestry, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, genetic information, marital status, familial status, GED rather than high school diploma, physical or mental disability, relationship or association with a disabled person, source of income, age, height, weight, veteran status, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids, or domestic or sexual violence victim status.

If the county commission deems a complaint within its jurisdiction, it would send a copy to the respondent and require a written response within 60 days, the proposed ordinance said.

A commission investigator would determine if there is probable cause that an unlawful practice has occurred and present findings to the commission for further proceedings, which could include mediation and/or a public hearing. The commission could ultimately issue a cease and desist order or impose other remedies, including restitution or, in “egregious instances,” a fine of up to $500, it said.

A council majority introduced the ordinance last week without stating the matter would appear on the agenda in advance. Council members said it would appear on the April 28 work session for discussion before it is scheduled for a public hearing and vote at a later date.

The introduction vote was along party lines, with approval from all eight Democrats and no votes from the three Republicans — Harry Haas, John Lombardo, and LeeAnn McDermott.

Herring and Granteed questioned the addition to the agenda, arguing the public should have been informed and provided a copy of the document in advance.

Bryn Smith had supplied a copy of the proposed ordinance to council earlier this year and emailed an electronic version during the meeting. It had not been publicly posted with other last-week meeting documents on the county site as of Friday evening.