FACT CHECK: What Columbia’s ICE Resolution Does — and Does Not — Do
COLUMBIA, PA — Recent coverage of Columbia Borough Council’s discussion regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cooperation has raised questions about the borough’s policies, public safety, and the scope of local law enforcement authority. A review of borough records, council statements, and existing law indicates that several claims made during the discussion remain unsubstantiated or lack key context.
No Formal ICE Enforcement Agreement Exists
Columbia Borough officials confirmed during the January 27, 2026 council meeting that the borough has no formal agreement, memorandum of understanding, or participation in federal immigration enforcement programs such as 287(g).
Both Council President Eric Kauffman and Vice President Heather Zink stated that Columbia does not have an operational partnership with ICE, and that local police do not engage in proactive immigration enforcement.
The borough’s 2024 resolution is symbolic in nature, not contractual. It does not deputize officers, authorize immigration raids, or grant local police immigration authority beyond what is already required under federal or state law.
Police Authority Has Not Changed
Despite the resolution’s language stating that Columbia will “fully cooperate and coordinate with any necessary external law enforcement agencies,” borough officials have consistently noted that local police lack the authority to enforce federal immigration law independently.
Columbia police, like most municipal departments in Pennsylvania, are limited to enforcing state and local laws. Encounters involving federal immigration matters require federal jurisdiction, and cooperation typically occurs only when required by law, court order, or inter‑agency request.
No evidence has been presented indicating Columbia police have altered procedures, detained individuals for immigration violations, or inquired about immigration status as a matter of routine practice.
Claims Linking ICE to Specific Killings Remain Unproven
During the January 27 meeting, claims were raised regarding alleged killings of U.S. citizens by ICE or Department of Homeland Security agents in Minneapolis and other cities.
As of this writing, no court rulings or official findings have confirmed that those deaths were the result of unlawful ICE enforcement actions, nor that local ICE cooperation policies were a contributing factor. Allegations involving federal agents typically remain under investigation for extended periods, and public conclusions cannot be drawn prior to formal findings.
Borough officials declined to address those claims directly, noting that such matters fall outside the authority of local government and council chambers.
The Resolution’s Purpose Was Political Signaling, Not Enforcement
Columbia Borough’s 2024 resolution was adopted unanimously and publicly framed as a statement of principle, following Lancaster City’s adoption of a “Welcoming City” ordinance.
Then‑Council President Heather Zink stated at the time that the resolution was intended to clarify “where we stand,” not to create new enforcement mechanisms. Borough Manager Mark E. Stivers confirmed that the resolution did not alter departmental policies or operational directives.
Symbolic resolutions are common in municipal government and do not carry the force of law unless paired with implementation ordinances or contracts — none of which exist in Columbia’s case.
Comparisons to Sanctuary or Non‑Sanctuary Cities Lack Precision
Coverage drawing comparisons between Columbia Borough and Lancaster City often omits key distinctions.
Lancaster City’s ordinance limits city officials from initiating questions about immigration status except when legally required. Columbia Borough’s resolution does not mandate such inquiries, nor does it prohibit them — leaving practical enforcement unchanged.
Neither municipality has authority over federal immigration enforcement, and neither can independently compel ICE action.
Council Reconsideration Reflects Process, Not Policy Shift
Councilman Ethan Byers’ comments about revisiting the resolution reflect procedural review, not confirmed policy change.
Municipal councils routinely revisit prior resolutions in response to public inquiry. Reconsideration does not indicate repeal, nor does it suggest adoption of policies similar to other municipalities.
To date, no motion has been introduced to rescind or replace Columbia’s 2024 resolution.
What Is Known
- Columbia Borough has no ICE enforcement agreement
- Local police do not enforce federal immigration law
- The 2024 resolution did not change police procedures
- Allegations involving ICE actions elsewhere remain unresolved
What Remains Unanswered
- Whether borough council will formally revise or repeal the 2024 resolution
- What additional clarification, if any, council members intend to provide
- How future federal or state directives may affect municipal cooperation policies
Conclusion
Public concern and scrutiny of government policy are legitimate and necessary. However, accurate discussion requires distinguishing symbolic statements from enforceable policy, and allegations from verified facts.
As of now, Columbia Borough’s cooperation stance remains unchanged in practice, and local officials have indicated no intent or authority to engage in independent immigration enforcement.
Further developments would require formal legislative action, not council discussion alone.
