SARANAC LAKE — On Monday, the village board voted on a resolution which would have kept local police from being used to enforce federal immigration law or to question or arrest someone based solely on their immigration status.

Trustee Aurora White, who proposed the resolution, said she doesn’t want the federal government spending local time and money on a federal agenda. The resolution was voted down, with a majority of trustees saying they worried it would risk finances if the federal government follows through on a pledge to penalize municipalities which decline to enforce federal immigration law. They also worried the resolution would create confusion and a “slippery slope” of dictating which laws the police enforce.

White is concerned that local police will be asked to carry out federal immigration enforcement duties as mass deportation efforts ramp up under the new President Donald Trump’s administration. There’s no such directive yet, but she sees it looming. And she equates such an order to an unfunded mandate.

The Trump administration is working on deputizing local law enforcement around the country to recruit more numbers for its deportation plan. Right now, these are efforts proposed through an expansion of mutual agreements between departments and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through an existing program.

White’s full resolution titled “resolution for safeguarding our residents and our financial resources” can be found at tinyurl.com/msbasfp5 starting on page 35. It failed in a 3-2 vote. White and Trustee Kelly Brunette voted for it. Mayor Jimmy Williams, Deputy Mayor Matt Scollin and Trustee Sean Ryan voted against it.

–

The resolution

–

The resolution would have prohibited the village police department from investigating, enforcing or assisting in federal investigations or enforcement based solely on the basis of immigration status.

White said the word “solely” was important to her resolution.

“This does not keep (the police) from going after anybody who has committed a crime,” she said.

The resolution would have prohibited the police from stopping, questioning, investigating or arresting someone based solely on their actual or suspected immigration status, violation of federal immigration law or civil immigration warrants. It also would have said the police shall not ask the immigration status of people — particularly for crime victims, witnesses or people who call the police seeking assistance.

White said the SLPD have worked to improve relationships with the community and she’s worried about sliding backward.

“If we didn’t ask before, I really don’t think that we need to ask now,” she said of immigration status.

“A family that has been here for years and has raised their family here shouldn’t now be questioned because people think whatever they do about their immigration status,” she added. “They should feel safe in our community. They should still feel safe to contact our police department.”

She wanted to keep local funds for local purposes only. The police are already overworked, she said.

Village resident Rich Loeber spoke in support the bill before the vote.

“The federal immigration system is broken. I don’t think it should be on the back of the local police force to fix it,” he said.

White said this was her first stab at this and she’ll try to find another way to let residents know they won’t be pressed for their immigration status and to ensure village police won’t be required to do the work of a federal civil immigration officer, adding that she plans to talk with SLPD Chief Darin Perrotte.

–

Cut concerns

–

Williams said he agrees with the resolution’s sentiment, but worried about someone in the federal government seeing it and cutting funding to the village.

He pointed out that Trump and his border czar Tom Homan have threatened to cut federal funding to any local government which has a local law or resolution declining to enforce federal immigration law. He worries this would affect the more than $30 million in federal grants the village has coming in. He doesn’t want to jeopardize those.

“I am not comfortable risking $30 million to go against federal immigration law at this time, with the statements that have been made,” Williams said.

White said this threat is being challenged in court. Trump tried something similar in his previous term and it was shut down by the courts.

“The Supreme Court has been clear: Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The 10th Amendment reserves rights not expressly delegated or prohibited to the federal government by the Constitution to the states and to the people. Courts previously ruled that localities have the right to not participate in federal immigration enforcement.

White acknowledged that this result might not be the same in the future.

“They’re not supposed to be able to blackmail us into enforcing something. However, that does not mean that’s going to be the situation down the road,” she said.

Williams also said he spoke to Perrotte about the resolution before the meeting.

“Dictating policy of which laws will be enforced by our officers and our chief, and which won’t, is a very slippery slope that I’m also not comfortable with,” Williams said.

White said this is not going against any local law, adding that it is federal law enforcement’s job to enforce federal law. The police would still cooperate with border patrol on criminal matters, she said.

Scollin said he agrees with the “whereas” clauses of the resolution, but it loses him on the “resolved” clauses. He said the resolution would complicate things for the police department and called it a political mandate.

White said she questioned presenting this resolution. It felt political to her, but she said it wasn’t meant to be. Brunette thanked White for proposing the resolution. She said as a village board, they are a political body and they do make political statements.

Scollin said federal and state mandates are confusing and conflicting enough already.

“We’re not California or Mississippi and shouldn’t aspire to be more like either, in this regard,” Scollin said.

Mississippi lawmakers recently attempted creating an undocumented immigrant bounty hunting program, but the bill died in committee. California is a “sanctuary state” which has policies limiting participation in federal immigration enforcement.

New York state has several “sanctuary” policies and has been recently sued by the Trump administration over them. The nearby border with Canada has increasingly become a place for undocumented immigrants to enter the U.S., with thousands of crossings per month.

Williams said there was a “dramatic change” in undocumented immigrant detentions in the region under the Joe Biden administration. In the U.S. Border Patrol Swanton Sector, which includes most of New England and most of the Adirondacks, in 2024 there were almost 20,000 undocumented migrant apprehensions, the equivalent of the 17 previous years combined.