Residents urge Grand Rapids City Commission to adopt sanctuary policies as ICE fears grow

Dozens of residents urged the Grand Rapids City Commission on March 25 to adopt sanctuary policies limiting local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), arguing such measures would protect immigrant neighbors and families.

Speakers at the meeting’s single public-comment period said they wanted the city to restrict information-sharing and deny voluntary cooperation that goes beyond federal requirements. “Please enact sanctuary policies that restrict the amount of information that the city and or the jails can in fact give to ICE,” said Sheldon, a Second Ward resident, who asked the commission to “only give the mandatory required information.”

The requests were raised repeatedly. Corbin, a resident who read the Fourteenth Amendment aloud during public comment, framed the issue as protecting due process. Jeff Smith, a Second Ward resident involved in local immigrant-support work, listed specific policies a sanctuary framework would include, such as limiting local arrests for federal immigration violations, prohibiting inquiry into immigration status by city employees and blocking 287(g) agreements that deputize local officers to enforce federal immigration law. “Adopting these policies,” Smith said, “would not give people false hope, but it would provide concrete acts of solidarity and support to the undocumented community.”

Why it matters: Supporters told commissioners they fear deportations and family separations and see local policy as the clearest immediate protection the city can offer. Speakers cited national reports and local examples to argue that city-level limits on cooperation could reduce community trauma and advocate for alternatives to enforcement-focused responses.

Commissioner responses and limits: Commissioners acknowledged the public concern but emphasized legal and fiscal constraints. Commissioner Purdue said adopting sanctuary policies at the city level could constitute “an unfunded mandate” and warned of possible state or federal funding repercussions; she said the city must weigh local control and budget impacts. Commissioner Belczyk apologized for earlier remarks and invited continued dialogue. Commissioner Knight and others said they welcome conversations and noted upcoming town-hall-style opportunities to continue the discussion.

No formal action: The commission did not introduce or vote on an ordinance or formal directive at the March 25 meeting. Several commissioners offered to meet individually with residents and staff to explore options. Commissioner Belczyk and others pointed to planned town halls and meetings with state legislative representatives as next steps; dates mentioned included a March 31 event and an April 3 event in the Second Ward focused on state-level engagement.

Context and competing views: Speakers opposing or urging caution about sanctuary designations were not prominent during the night’s public comment; advocates told the commission they have submitted thousands of signatures in favor and reported few formal public oppositions. Commissioners also noted practical constraints—chief among them legal limits on municipal authority over federal immigration enforcement and concerns about potential funding losses.

What was not decided: No ordinance was introduced and no vote on sanctuary-status policies occurred. The commission’s statements were limited to pledges to keep hearing from residents, to meet with stakeholders, and to monitor legal and fiscal risks. Residents pressed for a concrete timeline; the commission instead emphasized continued engagement and follow-up at staff and constituent meetings.