(The Center Square) – Immigration enforcement operations across the U.S. – and the backlash they have sparked in some communities – have prompted local officials and state lawmakers in Pennsylvania to advance competing proposals over “sanctuary” policies and cooperation with federal authorities.
Dozens of immigration-related bills have been proposed or introduced in Harrisburg – and the debate is largely split along party lines. Democratic proposals generally seek to restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and expand protections for all residents regardless of immigration status, while Republican proposals tend to push in the opposite direction.
Given the narrow split in the legislature, many party-line measures face a difficult path to becoming law.
Meanwhile, officials in Philadelphia and the Pittsburgh region – via Allegheny County Council – are weighing proposals to limit cooperation with federal authorities at the local level.
The state writ large has avoided sanctuary designation, and Pittsburgh was recently removed from the U.S. Department of Justice Sanctuary Jurisdictions List; however, Philadelphia remains.
One area where state lawmakers have shown strong bipartisan support though is the federal employment authorization system E-Verify.
Several proposals being considered would expand rules already in place under Act 75, which requires construction industry employers to use E-Verify, and Act 141 which applies to public works contractors and subcontractors.
Co-sponsored by Reps. Milou Mackenzie, R- Bethlehem, and Keith Harris, D-Philadelphia, House Bills 610, 903, and 905 would expand E-Verify requirements to additional sectors, including public contractors, meatpacking and food preparation employers, and hotel and lodging employers.
Senate Bill 931, co-sponsored by Sens. Cris Dush, R-Brookville, and Christine Tartaglione, D-Philadelphia, would require identification of lawful presence as a prerequisite to receiving public benefits.
Another, Senate Bill 471, passed 31-18 with four Democrats joining the chamber’s 27 Republicans in a yes vote last March. It would require notifying the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, ICE, when a noncitizen becomes a criminal defendant. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it remains pending.
There are other immigration-related measures also awaiting consideration in the committee.
Republicans introduced cooperation-focused House Bill 403 and House Bill 1693, which would allow a private cause of action against public officials who willfully disregard federal immigration detainers.
The Democratic Welcoming Caucus and its members have proposed roughly two dozen bills they say are intended to “protect all Pennsylvanians’ constitutional rights in the face of unlawful and inhumane conduct by ICE and other federal immigration agents that threaten individual liberty and public safety.”
Beyond limits on immigration enforcement cooperation, the proposals span issues such as removing citizenship requirements from certain professional licensing procedures, expanding access to non-REAL-ID driver’s licenses, and expanding in-state tuition eligibility.
Gov. Josh Shapiro has weighed in recently, particularly regarding proposed ICE detention centers in Berks and Schuylkill Counties, but not on any statewide policies limiting cooperation.
The Pennsylvania State Police maintain a policy of limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities and are prohibited from asking about immigration status during routine stops. Under some circumstances, information may be shared with federal authorities.
Local law enforcement agencies, however, may choose to partner with ICE through Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. According to ICE records, nearly 70 agencies across the state have signed agreements to date.
In January, Senate Republicans released a memo seeking cosponsors for a Federal Law Enforcement Cooperation Act. It would require all Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies to fully cooperate with federal law enforcement, honor detainers, and authorize 287(g) participation.
With most bills still awaiting hearings, Pennsylvania’s direction on immigration enforcement will likely be shaped at the local level unless and until lawmakers can agree on a statewide framework.
