Mesa residents urge council to end 287(g) immigration agreement; city manager says local jail practices unchanged

Residents at the Aug. 18 Mesa City Council meeting urged the council to end the city's participation in the federal 287(g) immigration enforcement agreement, saying the program fosters racial profiling and undermines public safety. City Manager Scott Butler responded that the city has been in the program since 2009 and that local detention operations have not changed. Jillian Ryan, an organizer with Indivisible Mesa, told the council that joining 287(g) is voluntary and that local jurisdictions may end their participation. "Joining the program is voluntary, and it comes at a local tax expense," Ryan said, and cited studies and reports she said link the program to increased racial profiling and community fear. Amanda Schneider, a Tempe resident who testified because her family frequently spends time in Mesa, said cooperation with ICE has reduced community trust and led some residents to avoid calling police. "Families now lump all law enforcement together and calls to Mesa PD have already dropped," Schneider said. She asked the council to withdraw from the agreement to restore trust and public safety. Scott Butler, the city manager, answered the public comments and provided administrative context. Butler said the city's 287(g) agreement was first entered into in February 2009 and has been active under both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. "We have not changed a single action about the way that we carry this out," Butler said, adding that concerns raised about federal enforcement activity outside the city’s facility do not reflect how the Mesa Police Department operates within its jail. Speakers noted broader concerns about costs, civil‑rights risk and civil‑liberties impacts. Several additional residents submitted blue cards opposing the agreement; two card submissions supported continued participation. The council did not take action during the meeting to modify or end the city's 287(g) agreement; no motion or vote on the program was made. The public asked the council to place the agreement on a future agenda for discussion and possible withdrawal. Staff did not announce an immediate plan to do so; Butler said staff would continue to provide factual context about the city's practices and legal responsibilities. Council members did not make a formal direction on the record to add the item to a future docket at the meeting.