Hundreds of public comments press Marin County supervisors to adopt an 'ICE‑free' ordinance

More than two dozen residents and community organizers packed Marin County’s board chambers on June 23 to press supervisors to introduce and pass an ordinance limiting county cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Speakers recounted personal stories, cited local detention counts and compared Marin to neighboring jurisdictions that have adopted sanctuary or ICE‑free policies. "The board must instruct Sheriff Gardena to withdraw from SCAP and stop receiving bounty hunter grants," said Susan Deluxe, who identified herself as a Greenbrae resident. "The board must pass the ICE‑free ordinance." Tammy Edmonson of MB Free and the No ICE in Marin Coalition said the coalition has met with all but one supervisor and called the ordinance "urgent" as ICE detentions, she said, continue to rise.

Several residents framed the issue as a public‑safety and humanitarian concern. "They are terrorized by ICE," said Rebecca Helzel, a volunteer with the Marin Rapid Response Network, describing raids and family separations. Joseli Lamine, speaking through an interpreter, said neighbors live in constant fear that family members will be taken and asked, "What are you going to do to keep ICE from separating families?"

Speakers and organization leaders presented claims about local enforcement activity: some said ICE detentions in Marin have increased (one speaker cited 9 in April and 11 in May), while advocates said petition drives and signatures demonstrate community support for an ordinance — several speakers referenced petitions with thousands of signatures. Kurt Reese of the Marin chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America said, "May was the hardest month we have seen. ICE presence across Marin surged," and gave a local tally he said was 40 detentions since the administration took office.

Supporters asked the board to draft an ordinance that would prohibit county property, resources and staff from being used to facilitate federal immigration operations. "This ordinance will give the county and its employees the legal authority to say no when ICE wants to use county parking lots, parks and other county property to stage and carry out its deportation operations," said a coalition speaker.

Opponents and some callers online raised different perspectives, questioning whether the county should create local restrictions that might expose the county to operational or legal complications. One member of the public argued the sheriff’s approach offers "a reasonable balance" and urged the board to focus on core county responsibilities.

Board members acknowledged the breadth of public comment and discussed the limits of local authority. Supervisor Rodoni said federal immigration enforcement is outside local authority but emphasized responsibility to ensure residents understand their rights and can access services and legal support. The county executive and staff described existing intergovernmental coordination with a 12‑county Bay Area coalition preparing for potential large‑scale enforcement actions and said staff would continue evaluating policy options while prioritizing minimizing unintended consequences.

No ordinance was introduced or voted on June 23. The public comment period closed after the board moved to the next agenda items. Several speakers said they would return and continue to press the board for a formal proposal.