EASTON, Pa. — The removal of a proposed ordinance to designate Easton a "Welcoming City" from City Council's agenda led to a heated debate Wednesday.
Early in the meeting, Mayor Sal Panto Jr. motioned to take Taiba Sultana’s Welcoming City ordinance from the evening’s agenda, saying the measure would accomplish nothing new.
The rest of council, save Sultana and Councilman James Edinger, who was on vacation, approved the measure.
This measure would have made clear that safety and dignity are not negotiable, that city services are for everyone, regardless of immigration status, and that our local resources should not be used for federal immigration enforcement."Mark Rosenzweig
Further discussion highlighted concerns from other council members, including a fear that a Welcoming City ordinance would paint a target on the city, and draw unnecessary attention to Easton’s immigrant community.
“We welcome every immigrant," Panto said. "I think our record shows that, and to put this on the agenda brings attention to the city of Easton that we I don't think we need.
“It's very upsetting to me, who has worked hard the last 18 years to make our city a welcoming city, to make our city, whether they be LGBTQ or immigrants, we welcome all people.
"We've proven that time and time again, and I think this just validates what we're doing. And so why put it in an ordinance? I think it's very disturbing to me that we would do this.”
Sultana countered, stating the ordinance would reaffirm the city’s commitment to its marginalized communities.
'Without protections'
Public comment drew even more discussion on the matter.
Democratic Socialists of America of the Lehigh Valley member Mark Rosenzweig said he was disappointed in council’s decision.
Rosenzweig said the move sent a message that conflicts with “the best values of Easton.”
“Our immigrant and refugee neighbors contribute immeasurably to our community, to its vitality," he said. "Yet they now remain without protections that this ordinance would have provided.
Adopting a Welcoming City ordinance amounts to “putting a target on our back by letting Mr. Trump know that we are now a Welcoming City.”Easton Councilman Frank Pintabone
"This measure would have made clear that safety and dignity are not negotiable, that city services are for everyone, regardless of immigration status.
"And that our local resources should not be used for federal immigration enforcement.
“Instead, Easton has chosen to leave those commitments unwritten and uncertain. The need, however, has not gone away. People will still face discrimination.
“Many will still live in fear of reporting crimes or accessing city services. That fear weakens our whole community because public safety depends on public trust, and trust is built on justice and not on suspicion.”
Councilman Frank Pintabone said he agreed, but said adopting a Welcoming City ordinance amounts to “putting a target on our back by letting Mr. Trump know that we are now a Welcoming City.”
'Not the Easton Police Department'
Pintabone also said he had been in communication with a councilwoman from Allentown, which adopted a Welcoming City ordinance, and found the measure ineffective at best, and problematic at worst.
Pintabone said far more people have been targeted by ICE in Allentown, whereas Easton has only seen ICE take two individuals into custody.
“We're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.”Easton City Councilman Fank Pintabone
Pintabone said he spoke with members of immigrant communities in Easton, and found they opposed the ordinance, as it drew attention to the city and its residents, potentially putting them at risk.
“Of these two incidents that happened in Easton, our police were not involved," Pintabone said.
"I'm sure there's police stations or police officers in some part of the country that are helping and assisting ICE with their job. It's not the Easton Police Department.”
Pintabone later added, “We're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.”
Rosenzweig responded that passing the ordinance would show a stance of solidarity for immigrants in Easton, “and that we will write into our legislation fairness, respect and compassion.”
Movement against 'ICE gangsterism'
Sultana said the ordinance would serve as a measure to ensure local police did not assist ICE in immigrant matters.
But Police Chief Carl Scalzo later said his department has not worked with ICE, and if a federal agency were to request assistance from EPD, it would only serve to protect federal agents, not to arrest suspects.
Scalzo previously stated adopting such an ordinance could make Easton a "beacon" for crime.
The councilwoman also said the ordinance would serve as a grassroots call to action for other municipalities, hopefully spurring federal action against the current ICE raids.
Rosenzweig later stated there is a movement against “ICE gangsterism” in the country currently, and adopting the ordinance would give Easton “sort of a public opinion against this brutality.
“There are eight, nine, 10 cities across Pennsylvania who passed the Welcoming City bill, including the biggest city like Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Erie County, Lancaster, Allentown… these are big cities, actually," Sultana said.
"There is a county, I think it's the county of Montgomery, if I'm not wrong, they passed the Welcoming City bill.”
'Not let them look the other way'
Pintabone said he would be fine with Sultana introducing a line addition to a previous ordinance that would state the city is not in support of immigrant residents being deported.
But he said inclusion of Easton’s Police Department in the legislation was unnecessary.
Councilwoman Crystal Rose also criticized the ordinance, questioning the point of a measure that seemingly accomplishes nothing.
“I think our job as council members is to do what we can within our legal authority to protect the wellbeing of our residents,” Rose said.
“But I do feel that federal issues such as ICE and immigration are outside of our jurisdiction, and I'm not a big fan of passing things that are symbolic in nature," she said.
"That belongs in a resolution to show where our support lies. But I just don't feel that the ordinance has teeth, as we've seen in other municipalities.”
Sultana said she is not sure whether she'll try to reintroduce the legislation, but said she'll speak to her fellow council members about the matter to clarify any misinterpretations.
"This isn't over, because I will not let them look the other way while families are destroyed," Sultana said.
