Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Greensboro leaders to block ICE detention centers and adopt Fourth Amendment protections
Summary
A large group of residents and community organizers asked the council to go beyond zoning tweaks and adopt stronger local policies — including a Fourth Amendment resolution — to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and prevent detention centers in the city.
Scores of residents and advocacy groups used the March 2 public‑comment period to demand that Greensboro aggressively oppose any federal immigration‑detention facility and adopt municipal policies to protect residents’ Fourth Amendment rights.
"We need a clear no and a consistent and concerted effort to oppose any attempt to build any detention centers," Kay Herman told the council, citing public records suggesting possible interest in converting the former American Hebrew Academy into a detention facility. "If ICE is coming into Greensboro, the priority should be making sure they never touch our city's perimeter, our neighborhoods, or our people."
Speakers representing immigrant‑rights and civil‑liberties groups urged the council to move beyond zoning changes. Jason Hicks pointed to a recent, rapid council amendment (Feb. 17) that tightened land‑development rules as an example of how quickly the city can act; several commenters said that step is welcome but insufficient.
Laura Gonzalez, a longtime resident and organizer, urged the council to adopt a Fourth Amendment resolution and other measures used by cities elsewhere: requiring judicial warrants before allowing federal officers access to city facilities, blocking ICE from municipal property, and creating legal clinics for affected residents.
Advocates pressed for specific municipal actions cited in public comments: municipal ID programs, official policies limiting data sharing and law‑enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and public hearings to study the local impacts of federal enforcement actions. Many speakers emphasized that these measures are intended to protect workers, families and small businesses.
Why it matters: multiple residents said the presence of detention centers and expanded immigration enforcement would cause fear across immigrant communities and could destabilize local employers who rely on immigrant labor. They asked the council for clear, proactive municipal steps to reduce the risk of raids and detentions.
What the council did: At this meeting the council listened to public comment but did not adopt new rules beyond earlier zoning amendments referenced by speakers. Staff and individual council members acknowledged the public's concerns and said they would review options and ongoing legal constraints.
Reporting note: claims about potential facility purchases and operations were raised by community members and advocacy groups using documents and public‑records accounts; the council has not announced any definitive plan to host a federal detention center. The city staff confirmed that zoning changes were made on Feb. 17 but did not report a current plan to convert any specific site.
