Village RETREATS From Sanctuary Push!

Local leaders in Millerton, New York have abandoned a proposal to restrict police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, citing legal risks and existing non-participation policies.

At a Glance

• Millerton Village Board dropped a proposal limiting ICE cooperation
• Officials said legal concerns drove the unanimous decision
• Local police do not track immigration status or sign ICE agreements
• Public hearings revealed divided community opinions

Proposal Withdrawn

Millerton officials unanimously declined to move forward with a proposed law that would have formally restricted the village’s police from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The measure, considered earlier this year, drew both support and opposition during public hearings that highlighted community tensions over immigration enforcement.

Watch now: Can local leaders refuse to cooperate with immigration … · YouTube

Board members emphasized that the decision was based on potential legal complications. They noted that the village’s small police department already refrains from inquiring about residents’ immigration status and does not enter into cooperation agreements with federal immigration authorities. With those practices in place, officials concluded that passing a new ordinance would expose the village to unnecessary risk without providing substantial changes to current operations.

Public Response

The hearings on the proposed law revealed deep divisions in Millerton, a rural community in Dutchess County near the Connecticut border. Supporters of the measure argued that codifying limits on cooperation with ICE would provide immigrant residents with stronger assurances of protection. Opponents, however, contended that restricting cooperation could complicate law enforcement duties and expose the village to legal challenges from state or federal authorities.

Village officials ultimately prioritized legal prudence. By voting unanimously to end consideration of the measure, they signaled a desire to avoid costly litigation and uncertainty over municipal authority in immigration-related matters.

Broader Context

The debate in Millerton reflects ongoing disputes across the United States about the role of local governments in immigration enforcement. Some municipalities have enacted policies, often described as “sanctuary” measures, to limit cooperation with ICE. Courts have issued mixed rulings on the legality of such restrictions, with outcomes frequently dependent on the scope of the policies and the jurisdictions involved.

In New York State, cities such as New York City and Albany maintain varying degrees of limits on ICE cooperation, while smaller communities often face more constrained legal and financial capacities to defend similar policies. Millerton’s decision highlights how legal risk assessment and local resources can shape the outcome of immigration policy debates at the village level.

For Millerton, officials emphasized that the withdrawal does not alter existing police practice. The department will continue operating without collecting information on immigration status and without entering into enforcement agreements with federal immigration agencies. The formalization of those practices, however, will remain off the books after the board’s unanimous retreat.

Sources

Times Union

New York State Government

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement