Second Statement to the Middlesex County Board of County Commissioners
75 Bayard St
New Brunswick, New Jersey
December 18, 2025

My name is Irfan Khawaja. I live in Princeton and work in Iselin. I’m here to advocate for the county’s passing a resolution in favor of the Immigrant Trust Act (ITA). Last time I was here, I recounted a story of an unfortunate event in Edison back in 2024 in which the mayor of that town abused a bunch of migrants with impunity. The point of the story was to suggest that had the ITA been in place, the abuse wouldn’t have happened. 

But tonight I want to take a different tack. At that meeting Mr Rios declined to put a resolution on the agenda because, he said, the County doesn’t discuss issues “outside of its jurisdiction.” It’s unclear what that phrase means, or what legal basis it has.  

First, and most obviously, no one can dispute that the commission has the power to issue resolutions. What we’re requesting is a resolution. So that request is clearly not outside of the board’s jurisdiction. 

What about a resolution on a matter currently before the state legislature? Is there a law against that? I don’t think so, but if Mr Rios does, I would ask him to cite the relevant statute.

Is the problem that the ITA is somehow irrelevant to Middlesex County business? Well, that’s wrong on two counts. 

If you read the text of ITA, it quickly becomes clear that the ITA isn’t just “relevant” to county business. It’s about county business. The ITA comes out and tells all 21 county governments in the state how to govern, and how not to govern. I don’t have the time to lead you through every clause. Just read it yourself: the bill tasks every county in the state with binding legal duties that demand discharge. You can say that the ITA is “not part of” your jurisdiction, but you can’t deny that you’re part of its jurisdiction. It’s pretty implausible to insist that the county insists on remaining neutral on a matter so directly relevant to its own functioning. 

But there’s a deeper point here. All county commissioners swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution asserts that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Settled constitutional law since 1997, Printz vs United States, prohibits the “commandeering” of state, county, or local resources by the federal government. In other words, according to current law, county commissioners–every one of you–have a legal duty to ensure that county resources are not commandeered by the federal government. This duty is what the ITA codifies. 

So while it’s true that the county can’t literally pass the ITA, the ITA is about county governance, and codifies a duty that binds every county commissioner. You can’t do an end-run around all of that by claiming that it’s out of jurisdiction. 

A pro-ITA resolution is a modest, minimal attempt to fulfill your obligation to the Constitution. It merely says “We approve the state’s attempt to protect its constitutional rights and ours.” This isn’t a matter of generosity or niceness. It’s not optional. It’s a matter of constitutional law. Run it by your lawyers if you want. I’ve already run it by mine. 

The only reason not to pass a resolution is that you reject the Tenth Amendment, reject the anti-commandeering principle, and don’t mind signing the county’s powers over to the federal government. If that were your personal preference, I wouldn’t stop you, but you don’t have that option. The Tenth Amendment safeguards the rights of the people through local government. Our rights are under assault. You have an oath to safeguard those right through the Tenth Amendment. There’s no guarantee that a resolution will do that, but there’s a guarantee that irresolution won’t. We refuse to accept anything less from you than your best efforts. We’ll be here again until you make them.