Readers of this blog may remember my earlier posts on the campaign for an Immigrant Trust Act (ITA) resolution in Clifton, New Jersey (Nov 5 and Nov 18). As mentioned in the latter post, I attended the November 5 meeting, but had to miss the November 12 one due to a scheduling issue. This is a guest post by my friend Jeff Hoey of Clifton, describing the November 12 meeting. Here is a link to the (tendentious, editorializing) Clifton Times piece Jeff mentions.

An alternative to The Clifton Times report on our last council meeting
by Jeff Hoey
Clifton, New Jersey

ITA Resolution Vote Sparks Strong Reactions at Clifton Council Meeting
A routine Clifton City Council work session turned into an emotionally charged debate Monday night as residents, advocates, and council members clashed over whether the city should endorse the proposed New Jersey Immigrant Trust Act (ITA). The Act, currently pending in Trenton, would limit cooperation between local police and federal civil immigration authorities while preserving all cooperation related to criminal activity.

About 25–30 residents attended to support the resolution, many holding signs and prepared to speak.

Resolution Introduced
Councilman Joe Kolodziej introduced a resolution supporting the ITA, reflecting requests immigrant-rights advocates have made in recent months.

Councilman Tony Latona immediately moved to table the measure. Councilwoman Mary Sadrakula supported the motion.

Kolodziej countered with a motion to adopt, arguing that municipal endorsements matter and that “we’ve been elected to make decisions.”

Councilwoman Rosemary Pino agreed the council owed immigrant residents a discussion.

Linking ITA to an Antisemitism Resolution
The debate changed direction when Councilman Chris D’Amato announced he would support the ITA only if the council also adopted a resolution condemning antisemitism. That resolution was unrelated to the ITA and was not on the agenda.

Several audience members later said they found the linkage inappropriate, arguing that immigrant protections should not be conditioned on unrelated political statements.

Supporters emphasized that the ITA addresses real concerns about racial profiling and ICE detentions, including cases affecting documented residents and U.S. citizens.

Vote Happens Before Public Comment
The council voted before public comment, a decision that several speakers later criticized. The council has heard from the public on the issue in two previous sessions.

The vote:

Yes: Kolodziej, Pino, Grabowski
No: Latona
Abstain: D’Amato, Sadrakula, Gibson

Because abstentions do not count toward the required majority, the motion failed.

Public Comment: Fear, Profiling, and Trust
When public comment opened, numerous speakers expressed frustration with the vote and with the decision to take it before hearing input.

Speakers emphasized that the ITA does not restrict police from dealing with criminals or reporting dangerous individuals. Instead, they said, it helps build trust so victims and witnesses feel safe coming forward.

Others warned about racial profiling and shared concerns about ICE detaining legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens due to mistakes.

Many speakers objected to linking the ITA to an antisemitism resolution, calling it confusing, harmful, and unfair to immigrant families.

Jeff Hoey speaking at the November 5 meeting

Tension Over Speaking Time
During one comment, resident Jeff Hoey exceeded the five-minute limit while criticizing the linkage between the ITA and the antisemitism resolution and trying to read more on behalf of those fearful to be there. A police officer approached to signal that time had expired. No one was removed, and the situation remained calm, though the mayor briefly recessed the meeting.

Council Members Explain Their Votes
D’Amato said he abstained because he did not want to vote “no,” but believed an antisemitism resolution should have been considered at the same time. He also noted that passing the ITA resolution would not change police procedures, since Clifton already follows the 2018 Attorney General directive.

Latona said he preferred to avoid symbolic resolutions in general and would consider supporting a version of the ITA resolution without references to pending state legislation.

Sadrakula cited major financial concerns facing the city and stood by her abstention.

A Divided Community
The meeting ended with unrelated disagreements over finances and personnel matters, reflecting a tense political climate.

For many residents, however, the main issue remained the ITA vote and the decision to tie immigrant protections to an unrelated discussion about antisemitism.

Advocates said afterward that the night showed how urgent the issue of trust in policing is for immigrant families, and how the council’s handling of the resolution left many feeling unheard.