Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southfield residents urge council to limit local cooperation with ICE; officials say police have no agreement
Summary
During public comment residents asked Southfield to refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and protect immigrants; council members and staff responded that the police department has no ICE agreement and officers do not request citizenship status during routine encounters.
Several Southfield residents used the public‑comment period on Feb. 9 to urge the city to adopt formal policies limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Susan Yagisian, a long‑time resident who described family history of migration, said she feared "masked agents walking the streets looking for people with dark skin or speaking another language or having a funny last name" and asked the city to "protect residents, both citizens and visitors" by refusing further cooperation beyond what state or federal law requires.
Sydney Thompson echoed those concerns, saying she had watched news accounts of agents operating in other cities and urging Southfield officials to "begin making formal and informal plans to address border patrol or ICE activity when it's within its borders." Both commenters asked the council to consider policies that limit information sharing and civil‑immigration enforcement assistance.
Council and staff responses on the record clarified the city's current posture: a council speaker said the police chief had issued a statement that the Southfield Police Department "does not have one" — meaning no formal agreement with ICE — and that officers "do not ... ask for citizenship papers" during routine stops. Councilwoman Haynes said staff were preparing a reporting form so residents could report any observed ICE activity and suggested residents call in concerns.
Other public comments during the same period covered different civic matters: David Carter voiced support for a citizen‑only voting amendment that would require proof of citizenship for voter registration; Gerard Mullen alleged a potential charter violation in appointing a person who serves simultaneously on two local boards and asked the council to review the matter.
Why it matters: the exchange put immigration enforcement practices on the council's public record and prompted a pledge from officials that the police department does not have (and is not operating under) a shared‑information arrangement with ICE. Residents who said they observed federal activity were advised to report incidents so the city and county can follow up.
Attribution and quotes in this article are drawn from public commenters and council remarks at the Feb. 9 meeting as recorded in the meeting transcript.
