(READING, PENNSYLVANIA) Reading is weighing a proposal to become a “Welcoming City,” a move that would set clear rules limiting local involvement with federal immigration enforcement while affirming equal access to city services for immigrants. Introduced on October 13, 2025, the ordinance is before City Council for further discussion, with potential tabling to gather more input from the mayor’s office and the police department. Supporters say the measure would build trust between immigrant communities and local officials. Critics often worry about ties to federal enforcement. Both sides agree the stakes are real for families who live, work, and study in the city.

At its core, the proposal confirms that Reading will not use local resources to enforce federal immigration law. City officials describe the ordinance as a public safety policy, not an immigration amnesty. Federal agents can still operate in the United States ??, including within city limits. The question before council is how far local agencies should go when interacting with federal authorities such as ICE.

Policy Details: What Reading’s Ordinance Would Do

The draft ordinance outlines several limits on city action and spells out protections inside city systems. According to council materials, it would:

• Prohibit city employees and officials from asking about, or keeping records of, a person’s citizenship or immigration status, unless required by a court order or by federal or state law.
• Bar Reading police from enforcing federal immigration laws or entering into agreements with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
• Prevent city agencies from including questions about immigration status on forms for city services or benefits, unless the law clearly requires it.
• Confirm existing policy that Reading Police do not collaborate with ICE and cannot detain someone based only on immigration status or on ICE requests, unless a judge issues a warrant.
• Ensure that access to city services is not denied because of immigration status.
• Create a formal complaint process for residents who believe a city employee or police officer violated these rules.

City leaders argue these steps would make it easier for people to report crime, seek help, and use public services without fear. Several studies cited in council discussion suggest that when residents trust local police, they are more likely to come forward as witnesses and victims, which can reduce repeat harm. Advocates for immigrants say that when parents fear an arrest at a traffic stop might trigger immigration questions they avoid police entirely, and that hurts public safety.

What It Doesn’t Change

City officials stress the proposal does not block federal actions or grant any legal status. Specifically:

• It does not stop ICE from operating in Reading or making arrests. Federal law enforcement retains full authority to enforce federal law.
• It does not give lawful immigration status. Only the federal government can approve visas, green cards, or citizenship.
• It does not protect people once they enter county custody. If someone is transferred to Berks County facilities, county practices—where cooperation with ICE may occur—apply.
• It does not require the city to fund special programs or encourage new arrivals. The measure focuses on how existing services are delivered and how local staff handle status questions.

These limits are important for families trying to plan their lives. For example, if a domestic violence survivor wants to file a police report in Reading, the ordinance aims to keep immigration status out of that local process. But if that same person is later held in county jail on unrelated charges, county rules control what happens next.

Regional and Legal Context

Reading’s proposal aligns with policies in other Pennsylvania cities, including Allentown, Lancaster, and Philadelphia. While terms vary—some prefer “Sanctuary City,” others use “Welcoming City”—the basic idea is similar: local governments set their own cooperation policies with federal immigration enforcement and promote inclusion in city services.

• There is no single legal definition of either term, and city measures can differ in scope.
• Reading’s current draft focuses on police practices, city forms, and service access, rather than broader social programs tied to “Certified Welcoming” efforts seen in other places.

Federal courts have repeatedly upheld the right of local governments to set limits on how their employees share information or assist in civil immigration enforcement, as long as they do not obstruct federal agents. That legal backdrop is one reason many municipalities have adopted policies like Reading’s proposal. For readers seeking federal context on how detainers and cooperation requests work, see the official ICE detainers resource.

Officials in Reading have emphasized that the ordinance would convert existing practices into clear local law. Police leadership has long stated they do not hold people based only on suspected civil immigration violations. The draft would make that stance explicit and would require a judicial warrant before honoring any request that involves detention on behalf of immigration authorities.

Practical Effects for Residents

For residents, the most visible changes would likely be in paperwork and at service counters:

• City forms would remove questions about citizenship or immigration status unless required by law.
• Staff would receive guidance on when they can ask for such information.
• The ordinance includes a complaint mechanism: residents who believe a city employee or police officer asked improper questions or shared protected information could file a report. The city would then be required to review and, if needed, correct the action.

This approach aims to reduce confusion and mixed messages that people sometimes receive when interacting with different departments.

Community advocates say the policy could be especially important for mixed-status families, where U.S. citizen children live with parents who lack status. If families fear routine contact with local government, they may skip health clinics, after-school programs, or safety reporting. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, cities that adopt clear non-enforcement policies often see better cooperation with police and higher use of basic services, without an increase in crime.

Public Safety Debate

Debate around “Welcoming City” measures often turns on public safety:

• Supporters argue that separating civil immigration enforcement from local policing helps officers focus on local crime and improves community trust.
• Opponents sometimes claim such policies attract people with criminal histories.

Research cited by city officials counters that claim, noting no increase in crime linked to these policies and reporting gains in community trust. Reading’s council appears likely to weigh that research alongside local experience in the coming weeks.

What Individuals Should Know

• If adopted, the ordinance would not change a person’s options under federal law. Individuals who need visas, work permits, or green cards must still go through federal channels.
• People with questions about their status should seek legal advice and avoid relying on rumors.
• The city’s role would remain limited to local services and public safety functions. ICE would retain full authority to carry out federal immigration operations inside Reading.

Important: The ordinance does not prevent federal agents from operating in Reading, nor does it grant lawful status to anyone. It primarily governs how local employees and agencies handle immigration status questions and cooperation with federal enforcement.

For now, the measure awaits further council action. Members have signaled a desire to hear more from the mayor and the police department before a final vote. Whatever the outcome, the conversation reflects a broader shift in how cities manage their relationships with immigrant residents—aiming to improve safety and trust while keeping clear lines between local duties and federal immigration enforcement.