Residents urge Huntsville City Council to adopt noncooperation stance with ICE

Dozens of Huntsville residents used the council’s public-comment period to press city leaders to adopt a noncooperation posture toward Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), saying the city should cancel existing agreements and refuse new contracts or cooperation arrangements.

“We are asking simply that you do not cooperate with state-sponsored terrorists,” said Jeffrey Engel, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, calling on the council to place a previously submitted noncooperation proposal on the agenda and to show “your votes.”

Speakers who identified themselves as members of Indivisible District 5 and other local activists repeated that call. Susan Stewart told the council that Huntsville “depends on immigrants” and asked officials to affirm the city is welcoming and to direct the Huntsville Police Department not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities during community policing activities.

Several commenters cited recent incidents in other cities in which ICE agents were involved in lethal uses of force; multiple speakers urged the council to act immediately. “If you care about this city as much as you claim, then you would need to consider this proposal,” said Tierney Gaston. Many speakers asked the council to place the citizen-drafted noncooperation resolution — first submitted in September, according to commenters — back on a council agenda.

Speakers also raised operational concerns: Sarah Coletti noted that canceling cooperation would require terminating several preexisting agreements with ICE; she said a FOIA request had identified more agreements than previously disclosed. Other commenters described fear of checkpoints and of agents operating without clear identification.

Councilmembers and staff did not move to vote on a noncooperation resolution during the meeting. The public-comment period concluded after roughly 90 minutes of testimony; the council adjourned with no formal action on the citizen proposal recorded.

Why it matters: Residents framed the request as both an immediate public-safety concern and a broader civic question about the city’s relationship with federal immigration enforcement. The speakers asked the council to provide clarity about existing local agreements with ICE and to adopt a formal policy limiting cooperation or contracts.

What the council said: No motion was made during the meeting to adopt a noncooperation policy, and no council member announced a timeline to take the matter up; several speakers said the proposal they want considered was submitted last September.

Next steps: Residents requested that the council place the citizen-drafted noncooperation resolution on a future agenda and to disclose the full list of existing agreements with ICE. The transcript shows public testimony concluded without a vote on that request and with no explicit commitment from councilmembers to schedule it.

Claims and responses recorded at the meeting: Community speakers alleged that ICE has used excessive force in recent operations and cited a number of deaths they attributed to ICE custody; council members did not adjudicate or substantiate those allegations in the meeting record. Public commenters said the city already holds multiple agreements with ICE and urged cancellation; city staff were not recorded responding to or confirming the complete list of such agreements during this session.

Ending: The mayor and council adjourned after the public-comment roster was exhausted; no formal council action on ICE cooperation was taken at this meeting.