A County’s Conscience: Why Westchester’s Immigrant Protection Act Still Matters

By Colin Smith
Attorney • Politician

We are living through a period in which the sharpest edges of immigration enforcement have become unavoidable: families separated in real time, heavily publicized raids, and rhetoric so supercharged that “undocumented” is treated not as a legal category, but as a moral stain. And that matters—because “undocumented” is, in the first instance, a legal claim about paperwork and status, not a moral verdict about a human being’s worth.

In moments like this, it’s important that we remind ourselves what government is—and what it is not. It is not only a sword. It is also a shield. Not only a cudgel, but a salve. Not only a machine that can compel, but an institution that must protect human rights—and, where necessary, the human conscience from becoming numb to suffering labeled “necessary.”

That is the frame through which I support Westchester County’s Immigrant Protection Act (the “IPA”). But support is not denial. There are serious objections to the IPA, raised by serious people, and any honest defense has to face them directly. What follows is meant to be comparative and procedural rather than partisan—asking of every framework not only what it promises, but what it produces in practice.

Start with what the IPA actually does (and doesn’t do)

Westchester’s IPA is a County rulebook: it governs County agencies and employees. It applies to “County Law Enforcement Agencies” as defined in the law—Westchester’s Departments of Public Safety, Correction, and Probation.[1]

Among its core operational choices:

·       County law enforcement may not stop, question, investigate, or arrest someone based on actual or suspected immigration status, country of birth, or the existence of a civil immigration detainer or administrative warrant.

·       The County may not delay release, detain, or transfer a person based on a civil detainer/hold/transfer request unless accompanied by a judicial warrant.

·       Civil-immigration interviews and access in County facilities are constrained: absent a judicial warrant, access generally turns on voluntary, informed consent and notice protections.

·       The Act preserves compliance with federal information-sharing requirements regarding citizenship or immigration status. [2]

·       The Act includes targeted exceptions for criminal enforcement and serious scenarios, rather than a blanket “no cooperation” rule.

So the honest summary is this: the IPA limits County participation in civil immigration enforcement—especially holds and transfers based on civil detainers—while preserving what federal law requires, and leaving room to pursue criminal conduct appropriately.

The best arguments against the IPA—and what they explain well

Opponents tend to raise a cluster of concerns that deserve respect:

·       Public safety: the fear that limiting cooperation increases the chance that dangerous people are released and later harm others.

·       Operational safety: the argument that if transfers don’t happen in custody, enforcement shifts into neighborhoods, increasing risk to the public and officers.

·       Federal conflict and political stigma: the claim that these policies invite retaliation, funding risk, or “sanctuary” labeling.

Those arguments explain something real: a government that cannot reliably restrain dangerous actors feels like a government failing its first duty. Westchester heard versions of these objections in 2017, when then-County Executive Rob Astorino vetoed the IPA citing public safety and concerns about a “sanctuary” label.[3] 

The hinge: civil immigration enforcement is not criminal enforcement

The IPA is responding to a constitutional reality: local government’s power to detain is not unlimited, and civil immigration detainers are not the same as criminal warrants.

New York guidance to law enforcement has emphasized that being undocumented is not, as a general rule, a crime, and that trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement promotes public safety. The guidance also underscores why local agencies must be cautious about civil immigration detainers and administrative warrants—because holding someone past lawful release can create constitutional and liability problems absent a judicial warrant or another valid legal basis.[4]

Federal litigation has reinforced the point that ICE detainers are requests, not mandatory commands—and that localities can face liability when they treat them as automatic authority to hold people past their release date.[5]

Westchester’s IPA is, at bottom, a line-drawing exercise: the County declining to extend custody on civil immigration requests unless a judge has authorized it. That is not “open borders.” It is constitutional discipline.

The moral spine: decency is not a border policy—it’s a civic obligation

But law is not the whole story. The immigration debate often tries to pretend it’s only about statutes and sovereignty. It isn’t. It is also about what we are willing to normalize in the name of enforcement—especially when the penalties include detention, separation, and permanent rupture.

This is where method matters. Not triumphalism—procedure. For every framework we ask:

·       What problem is it trying to solve—and what does it get right?

·       What does it ask residents to fear and to trust—and how will it change real-world behavior (reporting crime, seeking help, serving as a witness)?

·       What does it empower government to do at its harshest edge—and what does it make easy to justify once it becomes routine?

·       And when it fails—as every system sometimes does—who pays the price?

That last question is not rhetorical. Moral systems can be internally coherent while externally brutal—coherent for insiders while cruel to outsiders, generating meaning at the cost of scapegoats. The IPA is, in part, a refusal to let County government become the instrument of that brutalization—where ordinary civic contact (reporting a crime, seeking help, being a witness) is transformed into existential risk.

Answering the hardest objection: “Does this protect criminals?”

A fair answer begins by rejecting the caricature. The IPA does not bar criminal investigation or prosecution, and it preserves exceptions for serious criminal contexts.

But the deeper answer is institutional. The County should not buy safety by weakening constitutional restraint—especially for a disfavored class. The moment we train government to treat judicial process as optional when the subject is politically unpopular, we teach the wrong lesson to the machinery of power.

If we are serious about public safety, we should be serious about two truths at the same time: some individuals are dangerous and should be restrained and prosecuted—without hesitation; and government should not extend detention based on civil requests without the judicial process that protects everyone. The IPA is an attempt to hold both truths without collapsing into either cruelty or naiveté.

A home-rule reality: Westchester cannot do this alone

Westchester’s IPA governs County conduct. That is meaningful. But New York is a home-rule state: cities, towns, and villages have constitutionally protected authority—subject to state law and preemption—to adopt local laws and policies governing their own affairs and law enforcement practices. Counties may legislate only where the State has not preempted the field or reserved authority exclusively to municipalities.[6]

The practical implication is straightforward: a County law does not automatically bind a municipal police department simply because that municipality sits inside the County. So if we want the values of the IPA—lawful restraint, clear standards, and community trust—to be reflected consistently across Westchester, municipal governments must choose to carry that work forward in their own codes and in their own law-enforcement policies.

A call to Westchester municipalities: adopt local IPA-style protections

For that reason, I am asking Westchester’s cities, towns, and villages to consider adopting their own versions of the IPA—or, at the very least, embedding IPA-consistent limits into local law-enforcement policy and training.

Peekskill is already moving in that direction. Residents urged the Common Council to develop a “Peekskill for All” approach modeled after Westchester’s IPA, and the Council discussed a resolution intended to limit city employee and police cooperation with civil immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant.[7]  The city also circulated agenda materials and a draft policy framework reflecting those same core principles.[8]

This is what a home-rule system should look like: local governments translating shared civic principles into enforceable local practice—so residents have clarity, officers have clarity, and trust is not left to rumor.

Standing with Rockland County: the case for an IPA next door

Finally, I want to lend my voice in support of Rockland County’s pending effort to enact an IPA-style law. As reported, the proposed “Safety and Dignity for All Act” would restrict county cooperation with ICE in civil immigration matters, require judicial warrants for interviews in custody (absent consent), and limit communications and assistance except where required by law or tied to serious criminal or terrorism-related circumstances. The proposal has been revised and debated publicly, precisely because it raises important questions about safety, process, and constitutional boundaries.[9]

Opposition is real and worth engaging. Congressman Mike Lawler, Rockland County Executive Ed Day, and law enforcement voices have argued the proposal would hamper cooperation and threaten public safety.[10]  Those concerns should be tested on their merits—especially the practical questions about interagency coordination in serious criminal cases. But the answer cannot be to treat civil detainers as blank checks, or to accept as “normal” a local government posture that makes lawful residents afraid to report crimes or serve as witnesses.

Rockland will have its own legislative process and its own drafting choices. But the underlying question is one Westchester has already faced: whether local government will allow civil immigration enforcement to conscript local systems in ways that erode constitutional discipline and corrode community trust—especially when the human consequences are severe.

We can insist on safety and the Constitution at the same time. We can insist on ordered government and human decency at the same time. Westchester’s IPA is a practical example of what that balance looks like when written into rules. It is worth defending—and worth replicating, where local authority allows.

 


[1] Westchester County Immigrant Protection Act (enacted text signed into law; copy provided by author).

 

[2] 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (communication between government agencies and immigration authorities), Cornell LII. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

 

[3] The Examiner News (Aug. 2017): “Astorino Vetoes Immigrant Protection Act, Cites Public Safety.” https://www.theexaminernews.com/astorino-vetoes-immigrant-protection-act-cites-public-safety/

 

[4] New York State Office of the Attorney General, “Immigration enforcement” guidance for law enforcement. https://ag.ny.gov/police-departments-law-enforcement/immigration-enforcement

 

[5] ACLU case page and Third Circuit opinion: Galarza v. Szalczyk. https://www.aclu.org/cases/galarza-v-szalczyk; https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/123991p.pdf

 

[6] Home rule references: NY Constitution Article IX (Justia) https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-ix/; NY Dept. of State “Adopting Local Laws in NYS” (PDF) https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/09/adopting-local-laws-in-nys.pdf; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/MHR/10

 

[7] Peekskill Herald (Jan. 15, 2026): “Council to Advance Vote on Resolution to Limit Police Cooperation with ICE.” https://peekskillherald.com/35051/news/peekskill-residents-call-for-limits-on-police-cooperation-with-ice/

 

[9] News 12 (Rockland): “Rockland lawmakers unveil new draft legislation to restrict county's communication with ICE.” https://longisland.news12.com/rockland-lawmakers-unveil-new-draft-legislation-to-restrict-countys-communication-with-ice

 

[10] Congressman Mike Lawler statement (Feb. 2, 2026): “Lawler, Law Enforcement, and Community Leaders Oppose Rockland…” https://lawler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5416

  

Location: White Plains, NY 10601, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
Pluralism vs. Birthright Politics By Colin D. Smith Attorney • Politician   If you want to know where a society is headed, listen to what it says it is defending. At the recent Munich Security Conference held on February 14, 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered Europe reassurance: America and Europe “belong together.” But he didn’t ground that bond primarily in mutual interests or shared constitutional commitments. He grounded it in inheritance. America and Europe, he said, are “part of one civilization—Western civilization,” bound by “centuries of shared history,” “Christian faith,” “culture,” “heritage,” “language,” and “ancestry,” a “sacred inheritance” carried from the old world to the new. (Full transcript here:) U.S. State Department transcript of Rubio’s Munich speech That is not merely a story about origins. It’s a theory of membership. And because Rubio describes mass migration as an “urgent threat” to “the survival of our civilization itself”—a danger to “...
Read more

“Make America Pray Again” Is a Power Claim, Not a History Lesson

Image
“Make America Pray Again” Is a Power Claim, Not a History Lesson By Colin Smith Attorney • Politician There’s a familiar story making the rounds again: America was founded as a Christian nation, America has fallen into moral decay because we drifted from Christianity, and the fix is to “return” the country to God—by policy, by courts, by schools, by public ritual. The current wave has its own branding—“Make America Pray Again,” “bring back religion,” “Christian nation” rhetoric—coming from politicians and influential religious leaders alike. (The White House; Politico) ( The White House ) But this isn’t just general talk about spirituality. The rhetoric is increasingly paired with governmental action —especially around public schools—where the state’s authority and social pressure can turn “voluntary” into compelled participation. That’s why these campaigns are so often framed as “religious liberty,” even when the practical effect is to privilege one tradition in shared civic space . ...
Read more