Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Separation Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council for ‘separation’ protections while some councilors say city lacks authority
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Decorah City Council to pursue an ordinance limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; councilors acknowledged the moral urgency but warned Iowa law and county jail jurisdiction limit what the city can enact and recommended continued community collaboration and state‑level advocacy.
Decorah — Multiple residents addressed the city council during public comment urging action to limit the local sharing of immigration status information and curb cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Ruth Palmer, a volunteer with the Immigration Action Network and the Peace and Justice Center, urged unity and said the council should “focus on protecting rights, on building unity, not separation,” while several other speakers — including Christine Kalarski and Amy Ravello — described alleged harms they attribute to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and urged the city to adopt a separation ordinance that would restrict local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE where legally permissible.
“ We do not want our police department aiding this known abusive agency any more than that which is absolutely legally necessary,” said Christine Kalarski, citing national reports of aggressive enforcement tactics.
Council members acknowledged the moral concerns raised by residents but repeatedly cautioned that much of the local jail and detention authority rests with Winneshiek County and state law limits what cities in Iowa can impose. Several councilors said reforms at the state or county level may be a more effective path and urged community groups to continue collaboration with local law enforcement and county officials.
“ To be clear, this Decorah City Council has no oversight of the county jail,” one councilor said during the discussion, noting the facility is owned and overseen by the county even where it sits on city land.
Councilors encouraged ongoing engagement between immigrant‑support organizations, the police department and county authorities, and some suggested targeted administrative changes (for example, intake language or information provided to arrestees) could be handled outside an ordinance. No ordinance vote was taken.
The council closed the item by inviting continued dialogue and by urging residents to bring specific policy questions and proposals to the appropriate county or state forums where they might have legal effect.
