Allegheny County Council members during a Thursday meeting raised concerns that some county employees may be cooperating with U.S. Customs and Immigration enforcement.
Six council members last month sponsored a bill that would prohibit the county from cooperating with ICE.
The bill comes amid an uptick in ICE actions and massive protests against the immigration enforcement agency.
County council members during a public safety committee meeting spent more than 30 minutes speaking with their solicitor in an executive session that was closed to the public. Councilman Aaron Adams, who chaired the meeting, asked members of the public and the press to leave the room during the closed-doors portion of the meeting.
“Doing this in executive session is necessary because any opinion or advice our solicitor gives us is privileged,” Adams said.
County Councilwoman Bethany Hallam, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, eventually invited the public back into their meeting room at the county courthouse for a portion of the meeting.
During the public discussion, council members said they wanted more information about any incidents when county workers have cooperated with ICE.
Hallam said she had seen sheriff’s deputies with ICE agents in the county courthouse. She raised questions about whether other county staffers — including those at the jail — could be sharing information with immigration officers more discretely.
Hallam also wondered whether independent contractors working with the county could cooperate with ICE and whether the bill she introduced would bar such actions moving forward.
There is no paper trail tracking when county workers may be providing information to ICE officers, Hallam said, but “ICE is showing up in very coincidental situations.” Hallam said she’s personally witnessed ICE officers entering the courthouse.
“We have not been getting very straight answers,” Councilman Alex Rose said. “I would like straight answers.”
Councilwoman Suzanne Filiaggi raised questions about whether any coordination with ICE is “systemic or one-offs in different instances.”
She voiced concerns about whether quashing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officers could jeopardize funding the county receives from the federal government.
Council members also raised questions about what, if any, policies already exist — or have existed under past administrations — pertaining to immigration enforcement.
Members seemed divided about whether they needed additional information before they move ahead with the proposed legislation that would bar the county from working with ICE.
Council President Patrick Catena said he is supportive of the proposal, “but I’m a show me person.” He wanted more information about what was happening with immigration enforcement.
Hallam said she didn’t need any data to know she wants something on the books banning cooperation with ICE.
“To me, I don’t need to see anything to want to make sure that the county’s not cooperating with ICE,” she said.
The proposed legislation would prohibit ICE or Border Patrol from housing immigrant detainees at the county jail and would not allow the county to transfer people from the jail into ICE custody without a warrant signed by a judge.
The bill also would stop immigration officers from accessing any of the county’s databases or equipment for immigration enforcement operations.
Another meeting to further discuss the topic is scheduled for next Thursday.