Taylor public urges council to rescind 287(g) agreement; school board asks for termination

Residents, school officials and some council members pressed Taylor City leaders on June 17 to withdraw the city’s updated Section 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying the pact could expose residents to immigration detention and racial profiling and that the council should vote to affirm or rescind the arrangement.

Linda Moore, president of the Taylor Board of Education, read a June 4 resolution asking Mayor Willie, the City Council and Police Chief John Blair to terminate the agreement “effective immediately,” saying the board believes the agreement “will jeopardize the physical and emotional well being of Taylor children and families.” The resolution cites the agreement’s delegation of certain immigration enforcement functions to designated Taylor officers and expresses concern that ICE would gain access to city information systems and could place residents in out-of-area detention facilities.

Moore said the board’s action was not intended to vilify the city but to “voice our opinion” about a policy the board views as dangerous to students and families. “The board does not agree with or condone the City of Taylor or its police department’s decision to enter into an updated ICE agreement,” she said while reading the resolution.

Several residents backed the board’s request. One described what she called the risk of arbitrary detentions under ICE administrative warrants and urged the council to take an explicit position. Another speaker challenged why the agreement had been signed and asked for clarity about who in city government provided authorization.

City officials responded that the police department is pursuing a grant and partnership approach to address public-safety issues such as homelessness, and that department leaders intend to provide council with the agreement and supporting documentation. Mayor Willie and the chief said designated officers would not be sent out of the city on ICE task forces and that, in their view, the agreement’s operational mechanics would not create unilateral “raids” in schools or elsewhere without legal process. The chief said officers would continue to treat criminal conduct as any other arrest would be handled.

Legal and procedural questions emerged during public comment and from council members. One resident noted that under the Home Rule City Act (Act 279 of 1909) an intergovernmental agreement of this nature ordinarily requires authorization by the mayor or the legislative body, and said the chief’s signature alone may not be legally sufficient. Council members and staff agreed to provide written documentation of the agreement and its signatories and to consider the board’s request for a formal council vote to affirm or withdraw.

The meeting included passionate exchanges from members of the public, including at times profanity and loud audience reactions; the chair enforced the public-comment time limit. The council did not take a formal vote on the 287(g) agreement at the June 17 meeting. City staff said they will supply the agreement and further legal clarification for a future council discussion.

Next steps: Council members were told staff will provide the agreement and related documents; the board indicated it will press for a vote at a subsequent meeting so the council can state its formal position.