Heated Debate Over the “Welcome Ordinance” – Citizen Statements related to the Community Trust and Local Autonomy Ordinance

🎧 Listen to article…

The discussion regarding the proposed ordinance (amending the Borough Code to uphold community trust and affirm Home Rule authority) spurred an extensive and heated public debate, dividing speakers between those who supported the measure, often referred to as a “welcome ordinance,” and those who opposed it or requested that it be tabled.

List of Citizens Who Spoke and Their Stance

Most who spoke were residents of Carlisle Borough, but some were not.

For the Ordinance

• Margaret Frolic: For the adoption of the ordinance.
• Devon Spiba: In support of the ordinance.
• Eric Smith: In support of the ordinance, arguing it avoids conflict with federal laws and protects neighbors.
• Jeff Anglehart: Supports the ordinance, noting that the majority of community members care for their neighbors regardless of status.
• Shiraa Jane Menon: In favor of the ordinance, stating it affirms basic values around human dignity and civility.
• Tina Ziggler: Urged Council to adopt the ordinance now, stating “we don’t have time to govern and enact laws in the same manners that we did a year ago”.
• Andrew Wagner: Asked the Council to pass the ordinance based on moral matters and faith (love your neighbor).
• Carolyn Watson: Urged adoption of the ordinance based on decency, morality, and faith.
• Jim Cheney: Strongly encouraged Council to pass the ordinance, viewing it as a statement that Carlisle is a welcoming community.
• Becky Holden: In support of the ordinance because she believes it’s not a wise use of borough resources to detain citizens or people on their way to citizenship.
• Rick Christie: Encouraged Council to pass the ordinance, advocating for Carlisle to be a welcoming town for all.
• Mark Price: Encouraged Council to vote for the ordinance, viewing it as a clear statement of borough values.
• Owen Parker: Urged Council to pass the bill, advocating to “stay local” and arguing that the ordinance disentangles the town from harmful federal enforcement.
• Steff: Encouraged Council to remember who Carlisle is as a welcoming community and pass the ordinance.
• Rachel James: Did not articulate a specific stance but spoke to thank the Council for their time and consideration, suggesting support for the ongoing process.
• Katie Oliveo (read by staff): Supports the ordinance, noting it does not ask Carlisle to act outside the law and that unnecessary inquiries undercut public safety.

Against or Seeking to Halt/Defer the Ordinance

• Mark Matteo: Asked the Council to table the ordinance.
• James Evans: Stated the ordinance should be tabled to allow for a deeper look, data collection, and scrutinization by a citizen board.
• Andrew Shaw: Asked the board to table the vote to further study safety concerns and the impact on strained nonprofit resources.
• Andrea Shaw: Asked the Council to table the ordinance to review constitutional issues (Supremacy Clause, 10th Amendment).
• Jazelle Lochner: Asked Council to table the ordinance so it could be looked into further, citing concerns about community resources, tax increases, loss of federal funding, and lawsuits.
• Heather Leatherman: Asked Council to please table the ordinance, suggesting it is unnecessary political signaling that could harm residents.
• Chris Dempsey: Requested that the Council consider tabling the vote, citing concerns about resource scarcity, housing strain, and attracting more illegal immigrants.
• Corey Gelbball: Recommended tabling the ordinance until the Council could ensure the action was righteous and just in protecting citizens.
• Unnamed Resident (103rd St): Asked Council to table the ordinance to allow for further community input or put it on the next election ballot.
• Jared Macdonald: Opposed the ordinance and asked the Council to consider the financial impact and time constraints.
• Jordan Wagner: Opposed the ordinance, stating it should be tabled as it prevents police from cooperating with federal authorities and undermines the rule of law.
• Paul How: Opposed the ordinance, arguing it will divert educational resources and is a political platform that should be run at the federal level.
• Terry Hegel: Asked the Council to kill the ordinance or, failing that, at least defer it, warning it places risk on citizens and will make Carlisle a “magnet” community attracting national attention. Chris Arn: Opposed the ordinance, arguing it constitutes “misplaced compassion” and that local government should prioritize citizens.
• Dr. Gary Blacksmith: Opposed the ordinance, saying, “we don’t need to promote criminals”.
• Liz Low: Spoke against the ordinance, asking Council to table or vote it down, arguing it is unnecessary political virtue signaling that will cause disunity and legal troubles.
• Leslie Rhodess: Against the ordinance, stating that current immigration laws need to be followed.
• Robert Goth: Against the ordinance, stating that making Carlisle a sanctuary city could create a safe space for trafficking minors and puts officers and citizens at risk.
• Representative Barb Glime: Disagreed with the mayor’s constitutional interpretation and encouraged the bureau to carry on legally without revising the ordinance, noting that a prominent lawyer would appeal if it passed.
• Jimmy Kingsboro: Stated the ordinance should not only be tabled but “thrown out”.

Total For vs Total Against the Ordinance

Based on the speakers who explicitly stated a position or made a request (like tabling) that clearly indicated opposition:

• For the Ordinance: 16 speakers / citizens
• Against the Ordinance (including those advocating to Table/Throw Out/Defer): 20 speakers / citizens

Key Arguments and Discussion

Proponents

Proponents of the ordinance emphasized that it was largely a codification of existing borough policies, designed to protect vulnerable immigrant neighbors and enhance public safety by building trust within immigrant communities. Speakers argued that the ordinance upholds the principle of federalism by preventing borough employees (including police) from being compelled to act as federal immigration enforcement agents, a distinction Mayor Schultz later clarified was consistent with the 10th Amendment. Moral arguments were also prominent, calling on council members to act as good neighbors and uphold human dignity regardless of citizenship status.

Opponents

Opponents primarily raised concerns about legal vulnerability, fiscal consequences, and the potential for increased strain on local resources. Constitutional challenges were cited repeatedly, with speakers arguing that the federal government holds plenary power over immigration (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) and that the ordinance would violate the Supremacy Clause and federal statutes (8 USC 1373). Many requested the ordinance be tabled to allow for further scrutiny, community input, and “war-gaming” the potential costs, including lawsuits and the loss of federal grants. Several speakers worried that the ordinance would turn Carlisle into a “magnet community” for illegal immigrants, straining housing and social services.

👀 Watch full Novemeber 13, 2025 Carlisle Borough Council Meeting: