Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond council adopts first reading of ordinance limiting city assistance to federal immigration enforcement
Summary
Council voted unanimously to introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 2.3 to the Richmond Municipal Code to limit use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement; staff will review suggested amendments on data protections and 'safe zone' proposals and return for further action.
The Richmond City Council voted unanimously to introduce, on first reading, an ordinance that would add Chapter 2.3 to the Richmond Municipal Code limiting use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement.
City Attorney Kimberly Chin told the council the draft builds on the city’s earlier local ordinances (Ordinance 29‑90 and 12‑18) and aligns with California law such as the California Values Act (SB 54). Chin said the proposed language would prohibit the use of city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement unless required by state or federal law, and would explicitly note restrictions on police cooperation consistent with state law—for example, prohibiting use of funds or personnel for immigration‑purpose investigations or transfers absent judicial authorization.
The item drew lengthy public comment. Dozens of residents, community organizers and nonprofit representatives urged the council to adopt the ordinance and to consider additional protections, including stronger limits on sharing data with private contractors and a list of designated safe locations such as schools and community centers. Multiple speakers asked the city to audit vendors and contractors for any data sharing that could aid immigration enforcement. Several public commenters and speakers from Reimagine Richmond, Rising Juntos and other groups said the ordinance should be strengthened to explicitly restrict data broker services and protections for protests and sensitive locations.
Council President and council members thanked staff and community partners and asked the city attorney to review written suggested amendments submitted by community members. City Attorney Chin said staff would need “a couple of weeks” to evaluate proposed amendments for consistency with state and federal law; council directed staff to return with an evaluation and indicated it would consider incorporating additional language in subsequent readings.
After public comment and council discussion, the council moved and seconded the item and voted 7–0 to introduce the ordinance for first reading and to have staff review and report back on community‑proposed amendments for possible inclusion at the next step. Under municipal process, adoption requires a second reading before becoming law.
