Columbus council hears broad package to limit ICE activities and protect schools, public spaces

Columbus City Council convened a public hearing to review a package of measures intended to limit how federal immigration enforcement operates in the city and to increase protections for residents, particularly near schools, day-care centers and other sensitive locations.

Lynn Tremontae, executive director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, previewed statewide data showing thousands of civil immigration detentions since January and said those detained are often not violent offenders. "They are using detention as a weapon," Tremontae said, arguing that long stays and transfers impede legal defense and pressure people to abandon their cases. Her presentation cited patterns of transfers to county jails, and named Butler County Jail as a frequent receiving facility for Central Ohio detainees.

The legislative research office (LRO) described several draft code changes under consideration: a requirement that Council approve any 287(g) intergovernmental agreements; establishment of an evidence‑gathering repository to collect videos and other collateral; restrictions on using city‑controlled parking lots, vacant lots or garages as ICE staging areas together with required signage; higher misdemeanor penalties for obstruction and harassment within 15 feet of schools and child‑care centers; a prohibition on city employees holding secondary employment with ICE or Customs and Border Protection (with an official‑duty exception); and a special‑use permit requirement for new detention facilities and similar warehouse uses.

Assistant Chief Khamis of the Columbus Division of Police told council that CPD "is not a partnering agency under section 287 with ICE" and reiterated the department's directive that officers shall not arrest or detain people solely on immigration status, except when a judicial warrant exists or there is evidence of a criminal violation. The division also described training for officers on active bystander duties and explained complaint routes to Internal Affairs or the Department of Inspector General for alleged violations of departmental directives.

City Attorney representatives cautioned that federal supremacy limits what municipal code can compel of federal agencies, and explained why some recommendations from the advisory Commission on Immigrant and Refugee Affairs were framed as a resolution rather than ordinance. The commission's policy committee recommended that federal agents operating in Columbus "visibly display identification" and vehicle markings, refrain from tactical face coverings during civil immigration enforcement, and be trained and conduct operations consistent with local law and constitutional safeguards.

Council members repeatedly asked technical and operational questions during the hearing: what level of criminal activity triggers information sharing with ICE, how evidence collected by residents would be handled, whether anti‑staging rules would bar routine access to public recreation spaces, how signage templates would work for private property owners, and how a special‑use permit process could be enforced if federal actors used leased or privately held facilities.

More than 20 community organizations and grassroots groups offered public comment in support of the package, including resettlement agencies, legal defense groups and community nonprofits. Speakers described families avoiding school, medical care and court because of fear of immigration enforcement; asked council to use zoning, procurement, and signage to limit local participation in federal enforcement; and urged the city to expand legal defense resources and fund community organizations doing rapid response and humanitarian assistance.

No formal votes were taken at the hearing. Council leadership said the pieces of the package that are legally and administratively ready will be introduced on the council floor on Monday; other items will be further refined in coming weeks. The City Attorney's Office and the LRO will continue technical work on implementation details, data management and legal risk before any ordinance returns for a vote.

Council members and staff encouraged residents to continue submitting testimony and documentation so city officials can refine language, consider enforcement mechanisms, and coordinate with community partners on training and public‑facing materials. The council set no final deadlines for votes in the hearing; next procedural steps are formal introduction and subsequent committee review.