After a lengthy debate, Batavia’s City Council in a split vote recently approved an ordinance banning federal immigration enforcement actions on city property, as President Donald Trump’s administration’s immigration crackdown stretches into its third month.
The ordinance — which generated comments, largely in support, from dozens of residents when the City Council discussed it last month — is one of many similar local measures being approved by municipalities in the Chicago area in the wake of the Trump administration’s surge of immigration law enforcement in Chicago and its suburbs, dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.”
Nearby Elgin, for example, recently passed a resolution limiting federal immigration enforcement on city property. Aurora, too, passed a similar measure on Wednesday.
The ordinance passed Monday in Batavia adds to the city’s portion on restricted uses of city property in its municipal code.
The first section of the ordinance approved Monday prohibits civil immigration enforcement staging, processing and operations on city-owned property, and allows the city administrator to share documented violations of its policy with local, county and state officials.
Subsequent sections of the ordinance say that a judicial warrant should be presented when federal agents conduct federal civil immigration enforcement actions on city property, that federal agents must remove face coverings and ensure their badges are visible, and that the city will not permit the use of or provide access to city data to support or assist civil immigration enforcement.
At a special Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, the City Council debated the merits of the proposed ordinance, its enforceability and whether it would open the city up to a legal challenge from the federal government.
Ald. Kevin Malone, who supported the measure, said it would expand on what’s already outlined in the Illinois Trust Act — which generally prohibits state and local law enforcement from getting involved in deportation efforts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal policing agencies dealing with immigration matters — to include city services beyond just law enforcement.
And Malone said the ordinance has “enforceability mechanisms,” in that it directs city staff to report violations of the policy.
But he also pointed to what he feels is a symbolic impact.
“Ordinances and laws are not just … what we will do and what we won’t do,” Malone said on Monday. “It also states what we stand for and who we are.”
Ald. Jennifer Baerren asked about the difference between an ordinance and a resolution and which the city should opt for.
Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser explained at the meeting that an ordinance is enforceable, but that federal law still supersedes state law. Mosser also pointed to the Trust Act, explaining that law enforcement cannot obstruct lawful immigration enforcement by the federal government, even if the federal agents don’t have a criminal warrant.
“What you have to watch out for when creating an ordinance that’s enforceable is whether or not we’re setting up our local law enforcement — almost telling them to interfere with federal immigration enforcement — setting them up for then either obstructing … federal immigration officers or setting them up for local civil suits,” Mosser said.
The state recently passed legislation barring federal agents from making civil arrests within 1,000 feet of a courthouse of people involved in court proceedings.
Mosser said the city can restrict its property being used for staging or planning in immigration operations, but could open themselves up to a lawsuit by prohibiting lawful federal civil immigration enforcement actions on its property.
Malone indicated that the city wanted enforceability. But Baerren expressed support for a resolution, rather than an ordinance, saying that the benefit of the measure is allowing the city to document immigration enforcement actions when they occur.
“We’re not going to stop it,” Baerren said. “We can’t stop it.”
City Administrator Laura Newman clarified that reports of violations of the policy would come to her, not to the police, and that she would approach federal agents using city property for staging or planning. She explained that there are “nuances” when it comes to interactions between local police and federal law enforcement.
More Top Picks Best Blue Light Glasses For Nurses
“Making a mistake in that regard is going to be the violation of the Supremacy Clause,” Newman said, referring to the portion of the U.S. Constitution that dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law. “So that’s why having it be done through an administrative agency removes that possibility.”
But, given the recent passage of similar state legislation and the questions raised about enforceability and conflict with federal law, some council members expressed a desire to hold off on passing the measure.
“There’s still stuff in motion,” Ald. James Fahrenbach said. “This is all new ground.”
Ald. Alan Wolff cautioned that the city should be “really careful how (they) move this forward,” and agreed with Fahrenbach’s suggestion that the city “wait for stuff to shake out.”
Ald. Bob White also suggested waiting on the measure, as did Ald. Matthew Anderson, who expressed concern about putting the city’s federal funding at risk.
And Ald. Christopher Solfa suggested the city, instead of passing an ordinance, describe its compliance with the state Trust Act on its website.
But some council members said the city should approve the ordinance anyway.
Ald. Leah Leman, for example, said she didn’t think anything in the draft ordinance “is overly concerning for the city,” and pointed out that other municipalities have moved forward with measures addressing this matter.
“I think this is an urgent situation,” Ald. Tony Malay added. “We heard loud and clear from our … constituents that they want something done about this.”
Ald. Alice Lohman also pointed to the community’s support for the measure, and said it was a “tough decision that we need to make a decision on.”
“I don’t know how much more the community needs to do for us to listen,” Lohman said.
More than a dozen residents also spoke at Monday’s meeting, after several dozen showed up to speak at a previous meeting on the matter.
During the council’s discussion, Baerren suggested that there could be some level of enforcement even if the city opted for a resolution, rather than an ordinance.
And Malone clarified that the ordinance’s enforcement mechanism would “open the door for (Batavia) to hold (federal agents) accountable” via a lawsuit.
“It could cost money to do that, but guess what?” Malone asked. “We spend money to enforce all sorts of things.”
Ald. Tim Lanci, however, noted the complexity that going through court proceedings would entail.
“We are not protecting anyone by doing this,” Lanci said. “If anything, we are creating a false sense of security as we put a giant spotlight on us with the federal government.”
A request to table the matter failed during the meeting in a split vote. The council also considered revisions to get more members on board with the proposed ordinance, like removing the portion of the ordinance requiring federal agents to remove face coverings and show their badges, but the revision was not voted on.
The council ultimately voted to recommend approval of the ordinance at its Committee of the Whole meeting Monday, with council members Anderson, Lanci, Wolff, Solfa and Baerren voting against it. It then went on for final approval later that evening and was passed by the City Council in another split vote.
However, though the ordinance got a majority of support, some council members who supported the measure expressed a willingness to revisit or make changes to the ordinance in the future.
“I think that this is the first of many conversations that we’re going to have about this,” Ald. Abby Beck said at the meeting.