Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bay City commission tables resolution aimed at preventing local participation in federal immigration enforcement
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment split sharply for and against, the Bay City Commission on March 3 voted to table a resolution that would direct city staff not to use local resources to carry out federal immigration enforcement under 287(g)-type agreements.
The Bay City Commission on March 3 moved to table a proposed resolution intended to bar use of city personnel, equipment or funds for federal immigration-enforcement deputization agreements. Commissioner Runberg moved to table the item; Commissioner Shalabaugh supported the motion, and the roll-call vote to table carried, sending the proposal to the commission’s next meeting.
The measure responded to concern among residents and some commissioners that federal programs to deputize local officers — commonly discussed under the shorthand 287(g) — could shift local policing priorities and expose the city to litigation and expense. The resolution’s supporters said the measure is aimed at protecting local public-safety resources and the city’s finances; opponents warned that a formal restriction could risk state or federal funding.
During public comment, speakers were sharply divided. Paul Kleinau of the Second Ward urged passage to “avoid the co-opting of city resources we can't afford to lose by federal agencies,” saying local officers “are not federal agents.” Several other residents cited legal and financial risks if the city were to assist federal immigration enforcement; Kayla Harper summarized court rulings she said held local jurisdictions liable when they assisted federal immigration detainers. Other speakers argued the city could lose state or federal grants if it adopted such a resolution. Denise Davidson, who identified specific federal and state funding streams the city receives, said the city “will lose state and federal funding” and urged a no vote.
Commission discussion emphasized competing practical concerns: Commissioner Prince noted negotiation and legal strategy are the normal step before binding arbitration in the city’s separate contract dispute, and other commissioners said the community response merited more discussion before a final vote. Several residents said the resolution was about preserving trust between police and immigrant communities and preventing diversion of scarce patrol and emergency resources; others said the city cannot risk losing major federal and state funding.
The motion to table the resolution carried on a roll call; commissioners recorded votes as shown in the official roll call. The item remains on the agenda for the next meeting.
Why this matters: The resolution would determine whether Bay City personnel and money could be used to enforce federal immigration law, an issue that can affect community trust in police, the city’s legal exposure and eligibility for some grants.
What happens next: The commission tabled the resolution to its next meeting for further consideration and possible amendment.
