Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge opposing views on Mesa’s 287G agreement during public comment
Summary
Public comment at the April 6 Mesa council meeting featured sharply opposed views on the city's 287G agreement with ICE: Reggie Brown criticized the program and cited transfer statistics and delayed public-record responses, while Peter Dutra urged the council to maintain the agreement for public safety; no council action was taken.
During the public-comment period at the April 6 Mesa City Council meeting, speakers offered conflicting views about the city's 287G agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Reggie Brown urged the council to scrutinize the program and raised data-related concerns. Brown told the council he believes the city's approach creates economic harm and cited what he described as discrepancies between the city's data and public narratives about 287G. He said transfers under the program included many people without prior criminal records and complained that his public-records requests had not been fulfilled in a timely manner: "We have been talking about AI and other things ... it is 81% of transfers have no prior criminal history with MPD," Brown said; he also told the council he was awaiting records and that a public-records request had taken 104 days to be answered, according to his comments.
In contrast, Peter Dutra urged the council to retain the 287G agreement, describing it as vital to public safety and characterizing cooperation with federal law enforcement as necessary. Dutra framed rescinding 287G as a public-safety risk and said cities that maintain such agreements have remained "peaceful" in his view. "We must cooperate with federal law enforcement whether it be ICE, CBP, or FBI," Dutra said, and he urged council members to resist efforts to rescind the 2009 agreement.
No council action on 287G was recorded in the transcript; speakers presented opinions and data claims during the public-comment period but council did not vote on or direct staff to change the agreement during this meeting.
