Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Mesa council 287(g) cooperation with ICE stokes fear, ask city to opt out
Summary
Two residents told the Mesa City Council on Oct. 6 that the city's cooperation with ICE under 287(g) fosters fear in immigrant communities and urged the council to end the partnership; no council action was taken.
Two Mesa residents used the public-comment period at the City Council meeting Oct. 6 to urge the council to end the city’s cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying the arrangement known as 287(g) has intimidated immigrants and reduced public participation in community events.
The issue matters because residents said the agreement undermines public trust in law enforcement and public safety: they said families are afraid to attend public events and fearful of police interactions that could lead to immigration enforcement.
Gail Graves, a longtime Mesa resident, said recent enforcement tactics go beyond targeting serious criminals and instead sweep up people in public places. “They’re grabbing parents from in front of schools away from their kids. They’re sweeping people up at Home Depot,” Graves said during the three-minute public comment period.
Marissa, who identified herself as a nurse and Mesa resident, said she had noticed a decline in attendance at a recent Mexican Independence Day event and linked the drop to fear of enforcement. “No one should be afraid to live, play, and work in their own cities and towns,” she said, and asked the council to “opt out of working with institutions that harm our neighbors.”
Both speakers criticized what they described as racial profiling and said close cooperation between local police and ICE has eroded trust. Graves asked the council to require ICE personnel to be identifiable when operating in the community.
City staff did not take action on the topic during the meeting. The clerk’s office noted that additional public comments submitted online would be provided to the council and published on the city’s website.
The council’s meeting record does not show any formal response, vote, or direction by the council to staff on the 287(g) agreement during the Oct. 6 session.
