ROXBURY -  The ICE saga here continues to spin - and spin - with the latest target being New Jersey's top Republican - Anthony M. Bucco, the Senate Minority Leader.

Bucco is also township attorney and his dual role - not at all uncommon in the state - is making waves.

Many speakers at Tuesday's jam-packed council meeting, a common occurrence of late, wanted him to resign his attorney's job. They said his "anti-immigration" record as a legislator renders him ill-equipped to help fight a planned ICE detention center in Roxbury.

That's not going to happen.

Mayor Shawn Potillo was directly asked about Bucco by one of the speakers. He replied that Bucco has been leading the fight against ICE.

Specifically, Potillo said Bucco has contacted the state Attorney General's Office to explore ways to stop ICE from converting a warehouse into a detention center.

Bucco himself denied any conflict. Speaking after the meeting, he said the township has retained an engineering firm specifically to examine the infrastructure around the building, which is off Route 46.

Eventually, he said he expected the township to file suit against the feds in an attempt to stop the plan.

He also added another mystery to the picture. As of Tuesday, he said the deed officializing the purchase of the warehouse was still not filed with the Morris County Clerk's Office. The sale of the property from Delfan Industries to the Department of Homeland Security was announced last week.

As for his votes in Trenton, Bucco opposed recent legislation that, among other things, would limit cooperation between ICE and local cops and ban ICE agents from wearing masks. He said he did so because parts of what was a three-bill package were opposed by the State Police and police unions.

For many speakers demanding his ouster, those votes were the proverbial "red flag."

The prevailing view  was:

"If you are voting in favor of ICE, how can you truly be committed to fighting it?"

Bucco lamented how the issue has become so political.

Everything, of course, is political. His point was that both the township and the public don't want an ICE center in the region. So, they should be on the same side.

The problem is that many opponents think the township is not fighting hard enough, begging the question what can it do?

To that question, there were some radical suggestions like padlocking the building and even blockading access roads. That would be great theatre, but it's hard to see that happening.

One other note worth mentioning.

More than once, speakers compared ICE facilities to "concentration camps." As is the norm in these cases, Auschwitz was mentioned, as was Dachau.

Such comments are ill-advised. Nothing in modern history compares to the Holocaust. The evil of the Nazi regime stands alone and should not be so loosely compared to anything else. Such glib and inaccurate comparisons are not helpful.