To the Editor:

Your front page article [Community Leaders Speak to an Anxious Crowd at Post-Election Gathering,” Nov. 16} about the post-election Community Leaders gathering has some very ambiguous language in paragraph four.

Without quoting anyone in particular the reporter states that Princeton is “considered” a Sanctuary City.

This is an issue of significance. If Council has voted to make us one, there are likely major ramifications going forward. Sanctuary Cities are a clear violation of Federal law. Love Obama or not it’s indisputable that this was a law that our current president chose to ignore. Soon we will have a new sheriff in D.C. town who is unlikely to take such liberties with federal law.

If we insist on designating our town as a Sanctuary City, Princeton is likely to lose federal funding for all Town programs. They must be cut back or funded with additional taxpayer monies.

“Considered” is not the word Town Topics should use in describing Princeton’s status as a Sanctuary City. We are or we aren’t one … and the distinction is about to become relevant.

Nelson Obus

Russell Road

Editor’s Note: After being contacted by Town Topics, Mayor Lempert said this: “We are a ‘welcoming community’ and Council voted to make Princeton part of the Welcoming America network. Police Chief Sutter issued an order back in 2013 clarifying the role of our police in protecting local public safety. Here is a link to the order: www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/1_-_princeton_police_detainer_order.pdf. The order makes it clear that the role of the police department is to protect public safety, and that to be effective, the police must foster trust within the communities they serve so that victims and witnesses feel safe in coming forward to report crimes.