Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables resolution opposing ICE operations after lengthy public testimony
Summary
After strong testimony from immigrant-support advocates and residents, the South Bend City Council voted to table a resolution opposing ICE facilities and operations in city jurisdiction for further legal review and discussion; council recorded one abstention.
A proposed resolution directing the city to oppose ICE facilities and certain civil immigration enforcement activities was introduced and vigorously debated, but the City Council voted to table the measure for further review.
Kate Adams, executive director of Pacific Home Immigrant Support, urged the council to adopt the resolution, arguing it is lawful and preventative. “I’m here today to strongly support the South Bend resolution in opposition to ICE facilities operations within city jurisdiction,” Adams said, adding the measure would protect public trust and the local economy by asking ICE to present a judicial warrant before relying on local assistance. London Espinosa Kennedy, speaking by Zoom, framed the measure as two simple principles: “Every resident, regardless of immigration status, should feel safe calling 911…and city resources should be used for South Bend priorities, not for federal civil immigration enforcement.”
Council members asked for clarifications about the resolution’s legal effects and whether it would impede cooperation in criminal investigations. Chief Siebel told the council he had few prior interactions with ICE since becoming chief and said officers would continue to assist on officer-safety or criminal investigations when necessary, but would not perform routine civil immigration enforcement for federal authorities. Several members urged the city attorney and police leadership to review the draft language before the council acts.
Council member (speaker 14) moved to table the resolution for further discussion; the motion was seconded (speaker 2/Chief Siebel) and carried with one abstention. The motion places the item on the next agenda for additional legal review and council discussion.
