Guest Column: Open letter to Congressman Nick LaLota

I am writing as executive director of OLA of Eastern Long Island, Inc. (Organización Latino Americana), a nonprofit Latino-focused advocacy organization working in the five East End towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Riverhead, Southold and Shelter Island. OLA’s work is rooted in the belief that our entire East End community benefits from an inclusive approach that involves respectful dialogue and shared accountability.

Specifically, I am writing with regard to your letter to East End local governments stating that you “will not support Community Project Funding requests from municipalities that have adopted policies, enacted laws or taken official actions that deliberately obstruct, impede or refuse lawful cooperation with federal authorities carrying out their responsibilities under federal law.” You further stated that “it is appropriate to consider a willingness to cooperate with federal partners, uphold the rule of law, and protect public safety.”

These comments appear to be directed at the “Public Safety and Accountability Local Law” proposal drafted by OLA and recommended to East End local governments. Two local governments, East Hampton Town and East Hampton Village, have adopted similar proposals. Others are actively considering this proposal.

Your letter to the local governments lacks any specificity as to the basis of any objections that you might have with the proposal. I direct your attention to some of the express provisions included in the proposed local law:

Section 2. Federal Authority Recognition and Preemption Avoidance.

• The Town/Village acknowledges the authority of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws within the United States, including within the town’s/village’s jurisdiction.
• Nothing in this local law shall be construed to prohibit, restrict, or interfere with the proper exercise of federal immigration enforcement by an immigration authority in accordance with federal law.
• This local law is intended to operate within the town’s/village’s legitimate police powers to protect public safety and ensure transparency in law enforcement operations within its jurisdiction.”

Section 7. Construction.

• Nothing in this local law shall prohibit town/village officers, employees, and agents from cooperating with an immigration authority in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity when required by law.
• Nothing in this local law shall be construed to restrict compliance with federal or state law where such compliance is mandatory.

In addition, the proposed local law ensures transparency in government by providing that local police report to town officials and the public when immigration enforcement activities are happening in a local town or village. The proposal also establishes a local task force on immigration enforcement activities in the town or village as well as restating local police authority to enforce state laws regarding criminal impersonation of state, local, or federal law enforcement officers.

There is nothing in this proposal that would obstruct, impede or refuse lawful cooperation with federal authorities carrying out their responsibilities under federal law. To the contrary, this local law would promote the rule of law and public safety. If you disagree, I would greatly appreciate you sharing with our organization which provisions that you find objectionable.

I recognize that New York State has also adopted Chapter 55 of the laws of 2026. Your letter is silent on this state law. Among other things, the new state law precludes New York local governments from entering into 287-g agreements. I also note that since 287-g was enacted in 1996, not a single Suffolk County local government has ever entered into a 287-g agreement, according to the US Department of Homeland Security. Chapter 55 also addresses issues such as face coverings, law enforcement officer identification, and sensitive locations.

This state law applies to all local governments in New York State.

Consequently, compliance with state law could not logically be a basis for you to discriminate against any single local government with regard to Community Project Funding.

In summary, the proposed Public Safety and Accountability local law does not obstruct, impede or refuse lawful cooperation with federal authorities carrying out their responsibilities under federal law. To the contrary, it promotes public safety and the rule of law by providing both public accountability and transparency. Local governments should not be punished for exercising their constitutionally granted police powers to protect public safety.

If you hold a contrary opinion, I would appreciate learning any specific objections you may have.

Ms. Perez is executive director of the nonprofit OLA of Eastern Long Island Inc. (Organización Latino Americana).