Glendale city manager ends agreement to house ICE detainees; residents applaud, opponents voice concern

Glendale officials and residents discussed the city’s recent decision to end its agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to house federal detainees at the Glendale jail, drawing both praise and criticism during public comment at the June 10 Glendale City Council meeting.

Advocates hailed the action as a values-based step. “Thank you to the city of Glendale for ending its agreement with immigration and customs enforcement, ICE, to house detainees in the Glendale City Jail,” said Anita Quinones Gabrielian, a member of Amigos Unidos for Immigrant Justice. She called the move a way to “rebuild trust and reaffirm our city's values in inclusion, safety, and fairness.”

Several callers and speakers reiterated support. Tamela Chateco said the community is “made up of immigrants,” and thanked the council and city manager for the decision. Christina Hopestrom described ICE as an agency that “regularly bypasses due process” and urged continued protection for residents. Rama Hughes, a teacher and longtime Glendale resident, said the decision gave students and neighbors a reason to feel reassured.

Opponents also spoke at length. Mike Mohill, identifying himself as a Glendale resident and business owner, said he opposed the termination and pressed the council to disclose how members voted on the matter, calling it a “public safety” issue. Beth Brooks, another caller, said she is “totally against illegal immigration” and warned the change would make the city less safe.

City officials and staff framed the termination as an administrative action taken by city leadership rather than a new ordinance. Multiple speakers referenced the city manager's recent action to end the contract; the transcript and public comments noted the change but recorded no separate, formal council vote on reauthorizing or rescinding the agreement during the June 10 meeting. Several speakers asked for future, explicit protections and policies to follow the termination.

What happened next: public commenters on both sides urged the council to pursue clearer policies. Some asked for explicit sanctuary protections and assurances that police will not collaborate with federal immigration enforcement; others asked for transparency on the decision and how it affects public safety and city resources.

The council meeting included a broader public-comment period with many callers and in-person speakers addressing the same topic; the manager’s termination of the ICE housing agreement was repeatedly referenced across those remarks. The council did not take a separate recorded vote on the contract termination during the meeting.

The city did not provide specific next steps, timelines, or a formal council directive in the record on June 10. Several speakers asked the council to document how members voted on the prior contract decision and to clarify future policy on cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

For now, the administrative termination of the ICE housing agreement remains the salient change discussed at the June 10 meeting; residents and stakeholders on both sides asked the city for follow-up action and clearer documentation.