Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond council orders staff to craft ICE‑free zone ordinance after broad public outcry
Summary
After dozens of residents urged action to protect immigrant communities, the Richmond City Council directed staff to report March 3 on current protocols and to return within 45 days with a proposed ICE‑free zone ordinance, including signage, reporting and preparedness measures; the motion passed with one abstention.
The Richmond City Council on Feb. 4 directed the city manager and city attorney to prepare a proposed "ICE-free zone" ordinance and an implementation plan after hearing hours of public comment from residents, teachers and community organizations.
Council Member Claudia Jimenez introduced the draft direction, saying the ordinance is intended to "reinforce Richmond's commitment to protecting immigrant communities and civil liberties, clarify limits on the use of city property and resources for federal civil immigration enforcement, [and] prepare city departments and community facilities for potential emergency scenarios." She asked staff to report to council on March 3 about existing protocols and then return with a draft ordinance within 45 days.
Dozens of in-person and remote speakers — including teachers, nonprofit organizers and parents — urged the council to move quickly. Jessica Corrati said she "supports a strong loophole-free ICE-free zone ordinance" and called the proposal a model that could be adopted countywide. Several speakers asked the city to include multilingual alerts, signage at city properties, staff training, clear identification requirements for law enforcement who enter city property, and a regional coordination plan with neighboring jurisdictions.
Opposition or skepticism also appeared in the public record: Mark Waspberg warned that local government lacks power to stop federal agents and said enforcement claims needed grounding in law. Council members debated the scope and legal limits of a local ordinance, with Council Member Brown asking staff to make clear the distinction between policies the city can adopt and protections the city cannot legally guarantee.
City Attorney staff said the effort will require analysis of how an ICE-free zone would interact with current sanctuary policies, federal and state law, and the city's operational protocols. The council voted to proceed with staff work and to return with drafts and implementation options; the motion passed with Council Member Brown abstaining.
What the direction requires: Staff were asked to identify existing protections and gaps, propose city property-based designations that restrict federal enforcement staging/processing on city-owned property consistent with law, and propose an implementation strategy that includes interdepartmental protocols, training and community-facing communications.
Next steps: City staff will present a background briefing March 3 and return within 45 days with a proposed ordinance and implementation materials for council review and first reading.
