The New Jersey attorney general’s move to restrict state, local and county police from participating in federal immigration operations is receiving pushback from Sussex County freeholders, who have voted to place a question on the November ballot that would let voters decide whether the county sheriff should follow the directive.

But Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has determined that any instructions from freeholders or voters that would tell Sussex County law enforcement to ignore his directive, known as the Immigrant Trust Directive, would violate state law. Grewal has given Sussex County officials until July 8 to respond to his request not to include the question on the ballot.

“I recognize that this is a sensitive issue,’’ Grewal wrote in a May 17 letter addressed to Sussex County Clerk Jeffrey M. Parrott. “Officials and residents are free to express their disagreement with state laws and law enforcement directives, including the Immigration Trust Directive, and I welcome the chance to continue those conversations. But officials and residents may not instruct their law enforcement officers to ignore a law enforcement directive.”

Parrott said this week that it was premature for him to comment on the question.

“I can’t tell you what they are going to do. I have no idea,’’ he said.

Sussex County Freeholder Dawn Fantasia said Tuesday that freeholders had been discussing the issue for several months before the vote, and had also talked to Michael F. Strada, the county sheriff, who she said was "100 percent in alignment."

"This directive far exceeds simple protection of immunity from deportation if you report a crime, and to categorize it as that is outrageous,'' said Fantasia, a principal of a charter school in Garfield. "And I feel that people in the county have the right, people in the state quite honestly have the right, to say whether or not we want to limit our sheriff's department, to direct his officers to actually cooperate and comply in the interest of public safety."

She said the freeholders continue to speak with groups and neighboring counties and are also seeking legal advice.

"There are questions whether or not the sheriff, according to our state constitution, is obliged to follow a law enforcement directive that actually conflicts with federal law,'' she said. "The directive is not legislation ... so that is the avenue we are exploring right now."

Freeholder Josh Hertzberg, a former border patrol agent, said freeholders don't have the right to direct law enforcement, which is the AG's attorney general's role. He said the question is whether freeholders can direct the Sheriff's Office, since sheriff is an elected office.

"In New Jersey, the Sheriff's Office doesn't have law enforcement authority; they are a constitutional office, elected by the people," he said. "So does [the AG] have authority over [the Sheriff's Office] or not — that's a legal question. My understanding, based on some legal advice: In the state constitution, they are not given the authority to fall under the Attorney General's Office."

Other members of the Freeholder Board did not reply to requests for comment, and the board’s attorney, Kevin Kelly, did not immediately return a call Monday.

In April, Sussex County freeholders approved the ballot question, stating in part in their resolution that the state policy that limits cooperation with federal officials would create “less secure and more porous” borders, diminish security in the country, allow for the growth of illegal activity, and threaten the peace and security of the citizens of the United States, New Jersey and Sussex County.

Immigration fight:Somali immigrant detained in NJ fights to stay with family in U.S.

ICE:235 migrants who crossed Mexico border transferred to NJ and NY this month

The question that Sussex County freeholders want to add on the ballot, according to the resolution, would read:

“The Voters of Sussex County, State of New Jersey, direct the Sheriff of Sussex County and his office to obey the duly enacted laws of the United States of America and all agencies of the federal government with regard to undocumented migrants illegally residing in the United States of America; and to further instruct the Sheriff of Sussex County and his office to ignore directives from state officers and state agencies that would undermine federal law in this regard."

"I think it's important to put it out to the voters, let them express their opinion,'' Hertzberg said.

Although the resolution does not state the name of the directive, it repeatedly refers to the governor’s “sanctuary state policies.” The term “sanctuary” states or cities refers to jurisdictions that have policies in place to limit the involvement of state or local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement actions.

New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive, according to the Attorney General's Office, was designed to strengthen trust between the state’s law enforcement officers and its diverse immigrant communities. It aims to ensure that victims and witnesses feel safe to report crimes without having to worry about being detained because of their immigration status. But the directive also states that it does not provide “sanctuary” to individuals who commit crimes in the state.

The declaration of a “sanctuary” state, county or city does not prevent federal immigration authorities from apprehending immigrants in those communities who are wanted for immigration violations. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not barred from conducting operations in sanctuary cities. And in New Jersey, ICE continues to apprehend immigrants on immigration violations. Most recently, ICE arrested 13 people in New Jersey last month during a four-day sweep.

Nonetheless, the directive has led some municipalities in New Jersey to pass resolutions declaring they would not become “sanctuary cities.” These include Parsippany, Little Egg Harbor Township, Freehold, Jackson Township, Middletown Township and Berkeley Township. Parsippany’s Republican council majority passed its resolution in April, declaring that the township “shall never become a sanctuary city.”

Hertzberg said that instead of declaring jurisdictions to be sanctuaries, the real solution is fixing the country's immigration laws, and not finding ways, like the Immigrant Trust Directive, to get around those laws.

"Things just like this continue to enable the government to kick the can down the road and not deal with the real issue,'' he said. "There are good people living in the shadows. These laws don't help them, protect them. It just furthers the government not to deal with the issue."

President Donald Trump has often targeted sanctuary cities when talking about his administration's more aggressive immigration policies. Early in his tenure as president, the Justice Department announced new criteria for those jurisdictions that wanted to receive law enforcement grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. Among the new criteria was that law enforcement agencies would have to allow immigration officials access to local jails. The move was challenged in court, with state and federal judges ruling against the Justice Department.

More recently, Trump threatened to send undocumented immigrants who crossed the border to various sanctuary cities across the country, including big cities like New York and Los Angeles. Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan soon denied that the agency was relocating immigrants from the border to so-called sanctuary cities.

Federal officials have been sending recent border crossers to different detention facilities across the country, including more than 400 to facilities in New Jersey and New York during the month of May.

ICE Removal Operations in Newark said it has been receiving cases from the southwest border on a regular basis for many years.