Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents urge Cary Town Council to oppose ICE expansion near Regency Parkway and Cocoa Booth Amphitheater
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents and immigrant‑rights advocates urged the Cary Town Council on March 12 to publicly oppose expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Cary, calling for resolutions, studies of economic and educational impacts, and action beyond statements. The council took no formal action at the meeting.
Dozens of residents pressed the Cary Town Council on March 12 to take action against a potential expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in town, saying recent federal enforcement rounds have damaged trust, reduced school attendance and hurt local businesses.
Felicia Moore, the first speaker called in for public comment, asked the council to bring “a resolution or make a statement of position” and to publicly vote so constituents know where members stand. “I would like to see everyone at the table vote yes or no,” Moore said, urging council members who have expressed concern to move beyond words.
Speakers described last November’s ICE activity in the region as a turning point. Maria Rouse, an organizer, invoked the case of a local worker who was detained despite a work permit and urged the council to “join the community in fighting back” and to publicly condemn ICE’s actions. Immigration attorney Alexis Williams acknowledged that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility but said that “recognizing a legal reality does not mean our community or its leaders have no voice.” Williams asked the council to commit to formally requesting protections for Cary residents and to be transparent about any information the town can obtain about the office’s scope and staffing.
Other commenters, including members of local faith communities and immigrant-rights groups, urged the council to explore practical steps the town could take even under the limits of state law, such as working with building owners, publishing economic impacts from past ICE activity, adapting “know your rights” signage, and creating a special committee to coordinate with community organizations. Multiple speakers cited examples from other cities that have pursued moratoria or land-use restrictions to limit federal use of local property.
Council members did not adopt a resolution at the meeting. Clerk remarks recorded 15 written comments and 20 registered speakers during the public-comment period; the council concluded public speaks out without taking formal action on the issue that night. The mayor and members noted constraints under state law and the “Dillon Rule” but also discussed following up with staff and legal counsel about possible steps. Jason Barron, representing a later applicant for a separate rezoning, told the council he was listening closely to public feedback and preferred to continue dialogue rather than see a matter denied outright.
The council is scheduled to meet again in two weeks; residents were told they may sign up or submit written materials for future meetings. The meeting closed without a vote or ordinance addressing ICE operations.
Ending: The council did not vote on an ICE-related resolution on March 12; speakers asked organizers and officials to continue pushing for legal and administrative options and to return with data, proposed language and specific requests for council consideration.
