Alameda County committee advances immigration-response plan and ‘ICE-free zones’ resolution to full Board

Supervisor Fortunato Bass, chair of the Alameda County Act for All Ad Hoc Committee, moved on January 27 that the committee advance two proposals — a countywide immigration-enforcement response plan and a resolution establishing ICE-free zones on county-owned or county-controlled property — to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration. Supervisor Marquez seconded the motion and the committee approved it by roll call vote (Ayes: Marquez, Fortunato Bass).

The proposals, introduced by the chair, direct the county administrator to develop a coordinated response plan that convenes public safety agencies and relevant departments, standardizes reporting and communications, and conducts scenario planning and training for staff and contract security. The ICE-free zones resolution would prohibit county-owned or -controlled properties, including parking lots and nonpublic areas of buildings, from being used as staging, processing, or operational sites for federal immigration enforcement.

General Services Agency Director Kimberly Gassaway told the committee GSA has already posted signage in many county-owned and leased buildings to limit nonpublic access and manages contract security across the county portfolio. "We will coordinate with the county administrator regarding posting signage specifically related to ICE operations," Gassaway said, and committed to train security officers and staff on how to respond if federal officers seek access to county facilities.

Sheriff Senia Sanchez described current practice at county law-enforcement facilities: the sheriff’s office does not accept civil immigration detainers and will accept only criminal warrants. Sanchez said deputies will verify whether plainclothes officers are legitimate law enforcement and that the sheriff’s office will respond to community reports to help identify federal activity.

District Attorney Ursula Jones Dixon, joining by video, said the DA’s office does not ask crime victims or defendants about immigration status and does not permit ICE into DA office spaces. The office will coordinate with state prosecutors and the presiding judge on any courthouse-specific directives that affect courthouse security.

Probation Chief Brian Ford and Deputy Director Albert Banuelos presented departmental policies that prohibit cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, citing the Trust Act, Truth Act and California Values Act; they said probation has documented zero holds, transfers or interviews with ICE since 2022 and recommended countywide written guidance and coordinated training to ensure consistency across departments.

Public Defender Bridal Woods told the committee the public defender’s office strongly supports both proposals, cited cases of local arrests and the reported deaths of people in ICE custody, and urged the county to act swiftly "to provide basic protections that people are looking to us to provide." Several dozen public commenters — including congregations, legal-defense groups, school and union representatives and organizers — urged stronger language to prohibit use of county services and personnel, and many speakers pressed the committee to adopt a formal statement opposing reopening the former FCI Dublin site as an ICE detention facility.

Assistant County Counsel Samantha Storm told the committee the county could adopt a policy statement opposing use of a federal property as a detention center, but the county has no legal authority to block federal use of FCI Dublin because it is federal property.

By advancing the items to the full Board the committee directed the county administrator to develop and implement the response plan and for the county administrator or designee to identify county properties that could be used for immigration enforcement, install physical barriers where appropriate, and establish a reporting process requiring county staff to notify the county administrator, county counsel and public-safety offices if federal agents attempt to use county property for immigration enforcement. The chair asked for a progress report to return to the Act for All committee after the full Board’s consideration.

The motion to forward both measures passed on voice/roll call vote (Ayes: Supervisor Fortunato Bass; Supervisor Marquez). The committee set next steps: the items will go to the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 27 and the Act for All committee will receive an implementation update in February.