Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Los Gatos council to adopt non-cooperation stance toward ICE
Summary
During public comment March 3, multiple residents and local advocacy groups urged the council to adopt a resolution prohibiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and prevent ICE from using town property as staging areas; speakers warned of civil-rights harms and municipal liability and asked the council to place the matter on a future agenda.
Multiple residents and civic groups urged the Los Gatos Town Council on March 3 to adopt a clear policy refusing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and to prohibit use of town property for ICE operations.
Speakers during the verbal-communications portion included members of Los Gatos-area advocacy groups and residents who asked the council to place a non-cooperation resolution on a future agenda. "I would like our town to pledge that we will not cooperate or provide any resources to assist with federal immigration enforcement," said Jeff Suzuki, identifying himself as president of the Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition. Several speakers warned of alleged violent or coercive tactics by federal immigration agencies and asked the council to protect residents' constitutional rights by refusing to allow ICE to use town land or resources for operations.
Other commenters, including Eric (listed on the agenda as Eric Mohler), asked the council to discuss the issue formally and pointed to examples from neighboring jurisdictions that have adopted non-cooperation measures. Jason J. submitted a written notice on municipal liability, arguing informal cooperation with federal agents could expose the town to legal claims under the California Values Act (SB 54) and requesting that the council place a resolution on the agenda to insulate taxpayers from potential settlement costs.
Council members did not take immediate action on the requests during the meeting. Several speakers said they sought both a public statement and a formal resolution to codify non-cooperation; others urged regional coordination with nearby cities. No staff or council member offered a formal response or commitment to schedule the requested resolution at the meeting; the matter, as requested by multiple residents, will need to be agendized for a future date if the council chooses to do so.
The council closed the public-comment period and proceeded to the other-business agenda item on meeting minutes. The public's repeated calls for a non-cooperation resolution were a clear signal of community concern but did not result in immediate policy change at this session.
