Dauphin County Commissioners Reject Resolution Limiting ICE Cooperation

(DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA) Dauphin County commissioners voted 2-1 on September 10, 2025 to reject a “welcoming resolution” that would have limited ICE cooperation by county workers. The defeat keeps current practices in place and avoids any move toward sanctuary-style policies.

The measure’s defeat means county departments will continue assisting federal immigration authorities as they have, despite weeks of debate over legal risk, public safety, and community trust. The packed public meeting drew strong emotions on all sides, with supporters urging safeguards for immigrant families and opponents arguing the county should not limit law enforcement.

Vote outcome and immediate effects

• Vote: 2-1 against the welcoming resolution.
• Commissioners George Hartwick and Mike Pries voted to reject the proposal.
• Commissioner Justin Douglas voted in favor, citing legal and fiscal concerns.
• Immediate effect: No sanctuary designation; county cooperation with federal immigration authorities continues under current practices.

Commissioners’ positions and vote dynamics

Justin Douglas framed his yes vote as an issue of legal prudence and fiscal responsibility. He warned that detaining people at the request of federal agents without a judicial warrant can lead to costly civil rights claims. Douglas pointed to cases elsewhere where counties faced lawsuits over holds based solely on immigration detainers. He also noted the county prison’s practice of not holding individuals past midnight could still raise risk if the hold is only for immigration reasons.

Hartwick and Pries countered that the county board should not interfere with the Sheriff’s Office or the District Attorney’s Office. They argued placing broad limits on ICE cooperation could send a mixed message that Dauphin County is a “safe haven,” potentially giving families a false sense of security and undermining law enforcement coordination. Both emphasized that public safety responsibilities rest with sworn officers and prosecutors, not the commissioners.

Dauphin County Sheriff Nicholas Chimienti Jr. supported Hartwick and Pries’ approach, promising continued collaboration with federal and local partners. He said, “Public safety should never be a political game,” characterizing the welcoming resolution as an inappropriate attempt to manage police work from the board room. The Sheriff affirmed his office’s commitment to cooperating with all agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Public safety should never be a political game.” — Dauphin County Sheriff Nicholas Chimienti Jr.

Community impact and public meeting highlights

The meeting featured a large turnout and emotionally charged testimony:

• Supporters of the resolution:
  • Described fear within immigrant communities.
  • Urged limits on information sharing and holds without court warrants.
  • Drew historical comparisons to government actions that harmed minority groups.
  • Said clear limits would help keep families together and encourage reporting of crimes.
• Opponents of the resolution:
  • Called for strict enforcement of immigration laws.
  • Argued cooperation with ICE protects neighborhoods.
  • Said the county should not create policies that could confuse law enforcement responsibilities.

Legal context and national comparisons

• Across the United States, local governments take varied approaches:
  • Some jurisdictions limit detainers and information sharing.
  • Others maintain broad cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
• Federal detainers are civil requests asking a jail to notify ICE before release and, in some cases, to hold a person for transfer. Critics argue holding someone without a judge’s warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement groups say coordination with federal partners is vital to address individuals who pose threats and to maintain consistent enforcement.

• For federal guidance on detainers, readers can consult the official U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers guidance.

• Analysis (VisaVerge.com): Counties that draw bright lines on immigration holds often do so to avoid liability and reinforce trust with residents. Conversely, counties that maintain cooperation emphasize benefits from federal databases, task forces, and shared intelligence.

Practical implications for Dauphin County

Key points that remain unchanged after the vote:

1. No sanctuary designation: The county is not adopting new restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
2. Law enforcement discretion: The Sheriff and District Attorney continue to decide when and how to support immigration operations.
3. Detention practices: The jail’s “no holds past midnight” policy remains in effect, but concerns persist about detainers without judicial warrants.
4. Public engagement: Community members plan to continue pressing for policy clarity, whether to support limits or to reinforce cooperation.

Political dimensions and future outlook

• Commissioner Justin Douglas, who is campaigning for a federal seat, used the issue to call for clearer national standards and court-backed warrant requirements for custody transfers.
• Hartwick and Pries said their votes preserved the integrity of law enforcement operations and avoided symbolic policies with uncertain legal effects.
• Supporters of the welcome resolution argue clear limits would set fair rules, reduce legal exposure, and encourage immigrant families to access services without fear.
• Opponents worry limits would create confusion and signal a pullback from federal cooperation.

Guidance for immigrant residents and service providers

For immigrants living in Dauphin County, the immediate takeaway is: nothing changes right now.

Practical recommendations:
– Continue to attend court dates and keep documents current.
– Seek legal counsel for questions about old removal orders or pending matters.
– Service providers, schools, and clinics remain open to all residents, regardless of status.
– Advocates recommend:
– Carrying identification,
– Knowing your rights during encounters with officers,
– Speaking with qualified counsel if you fear an immigration hold.

Next steps and timeline

• As of September 11, 2025, no follow-up votes are scheduled.
• Future policy changes may depend on:
  • Changes in the board’s composition,
  • Court rulings on detainers,
  • State or federal guidance.
• For now, the board’s stance is clear: no countywide welcoming resolution, and cooperation with federal immigration authorities will continue as before.