Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Cottage Grove council to reconsider ICE contract and ask for immigrant‑protection resolution
Summary
Multiple residents used the council's open forum Aug. 6 to ask the Cottage Grove City Council to reconsider local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to place a resolution on the agenda that would express city policy toward immigration enforcement.
Several Cottage Grove residents urged the City Council on Aug. 6 to reconsider local arrangements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to place a proposed immigrant‑protection resolution on a future agenda.
At the council's open forum, resident Cindy Gish said she spoke as a longtime teacher and first‑generation American and asked the city not to "encourage ICE and have them here doing harm to people, scaring my students." She said her family's experience as displaced persons shaped her view that the city should "embrace American ideals and make you welcome here."
Peggy Nelson, who said she and others had sent a letter and a proposed resolution to the council, asked that the council formally place the item on an agenda and vote publicly in the chamber. Nelson read an email she said the mayor sent to All Saints Lutheran Church and said she would like an appointment with City Administrator Jennifer Levitt to discuss the issue.
Kathy Kuchar, who identified herself as part of the Indivisible group in the St. Croix Valley, said, "Immigrants are a big part of our community, and I want people to feel safe here," and urged the council to require ICE officers to show "proper identification and to be unmasked" when operating locally. Ruth Jones said similar resolutions have passed in Minneapolis and Columbia Heights and that St. Paul was considering one, and she said she wanted Cottage Grove to remain a "safe haven."
None of the speakers asked the council to take immediate formal action at that meeting. Council members did not vote on or place a resolution on the agenda during the Aug. 6 session. The comments were presented during the public comment / open forum portion of the meeting, and council members acknowledged receipt but did not move the item into formal agenda business that evening.
The matter remains a citizen request rather than a staff‑led or council‑initiated agenda item. Residents who urged action asked the council to consider either changing any contract terms related to federal immigration enforcement or to place a city resolution for consideration at a future public meeting.
