Residents urge Mesa to end 287(g) cooperation with ICE; others defend police practices

Multiple residents used public comment time at the Aug. 25 Mesa City Council meeting to urge the council to withdraw from the city’s 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while another speaker publicly defended Mesa police practices and opposed defunding. No formal council action to change the agreement was taken at the meeting.

At the podium, Noah James Markham said he wanted Mesa to “get rid of this agreement with ICE” and asked the city to consider creating a museum for Japanese Americans interned during World War II, linking his request to concerns about cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Jeanne Fasanella, a District 3 resident, urged the council to add the 287(g) agreement to a future agenda and described what she characterized as recent ICE practices that she said include deporting people without trials and detaining people in overcrowded centers. Fasanella said, “Mesa PD’s goal is to protect and serve all residents regardless of immigration status. Continued cooperation with ICE is incompatible with that goal.”

Speaking in support of continuing current Mesa police procedures, resident David Winstanley thanked first responders and said he opposed calls to defund police. He told the council, “I can think of nothing more wrong headed than taking away funding from the very people who keep us safe,” and said he believed the majority of Mesa residents back the process described by city manager Chris Butler.

City manager Chris Butler addressed the council and public comment, saying the city’s approach has been consistent over multiple federal administrations: “Nothing that Mesa PD is doing is any different today than we did during the Obama administration, the Trump… the Biden administration, and now currently, under President Trump’s administration. Our actions of our officers are exactly the same during all of those administrations,” he said.

Fasanella cited that Mesa’s 287(g) agreement was entered in February 2009 and asked that the council place the agreement on a future agenda for consideration; the council record does not show that the request was added or that the council took formal action at the meeting. The clerk read into the record additional names of residents who wished to register opposition to the agreement but who did not speak during the three‑speaker public comment period; those names included Ryan Jarrah Bursch, Richard James, John Bush, Cassandra Winchester, Robert Hathcock, Michael Stanley, Jillian Ryan, Trinity Schwabacher, Nathan James, Rachel Dugan, Christopher Cody, Alita West, Betsy Soderquist, Francesca Bauer, and Emmeline.

No motion or vote regarding the 287(g) agreement occurred during the meeting. Public comment concluded with no council direction on the item recorded during the session.