Migrant support asks city to oppose ICE

Published 6:19 pm Sunday, March 1, 2026

The City of South Bend is pondering a resolution to officially oppose the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) along with banning them from constructing a facility, if one is ever proposed. The topic came up at council meetings on Jan. 26, Feb. 9 and Feb. 23.

Pacific County Immigration Support Executive Director Tate Adams attended the Jan. 26 meeting and formally asked the city to pass a resolution.

The resolution would mean the city “would do everything in its legal power to oppose ICE activity and operations” within the city, he said. A similar resolution was adopted by the Long Beach City Council in January.

“To be clear — for anyone that asks — this resolution is not about obstructing federal investigations, nor is it about telling the city how to do its job,” Adams said. “It is about affirming South Bend’s responsibility to protect its local economy, its workforce and its authority over land use and municipal resources.”

“As a small, rural, industry-based community, South Bend depends on stability, predictability and local decision-making. The establishment of federal enforcement facilities or operations within city limits could have significant economic and operational impacts that this city is neither designed nor funded to absorb,” Adams added.

The city has received a mixed response from citizens including from Julie Struck, who was the acting mayor of the city until Jan. 1, 2025.

Under state law, agencies and municipalities are not required to assist in federal operations, speaking specifically in this case ICE. They also cannot directly impede federal operations in any that could be considered obstruction.

“First, I am concerned that taking a public position on this matter could draw unwanted attention to South Bend, potentially making us a target when we may not have been previously,” Struck said. “Such an outcome would be counterproductive and could increase risk to our immigrant community.”

“Second, Item No. 3 concentrates decision-making authority solely with the mayor. If circumstances arise that require a response to ICE activity within the city, I believe it would be more appropriate for the full council to participate in that decision rather than vesting authority in a single individual.”

“Finally, Item No. 4 states that this resolution is consistent with the Washington state law; however, Washington state law conflicts with federal law, which raises additional concerns about the legal footing of this resolution. I understand the desire to protect the residents of South Bend. I don’t think this is the best avenue to achieve it,” Struck added.

Other voices were in support of the resolution.

“I am writing to ask you to support the proposed immigration resolution,” Lisa Barile said. “I would hope you look at it through your humanity opposed to your politics. Immigrants are a big part of our community as our friends, neighbors and coworkers.

“We need to show that we support, value and respect their contributions to this community of South Bend. As scary as things are right now for immigrants, adopting this resolution is the least we can do to show our support and ease a bit of their fear,” Barile added.

“I respectfully urge the city council to adopt this resolution as a prudent step to preserve local control, protect South Bend’s economic base and support the long-term stability of our community,” Christine Balcom said.

The city contracts for legal counsel representation with Tierney Correa & Zeinemann, based out of Seattle. The firm was tasked with walking the tight rope of what can and cannot be done. Just hours before the meeting, the law group sent city officials a recommendation.

Barnard asked Councilman Darren Manlow to read out the firm’s recommendations at the Jan. 26 meeting, which they called a “tricky” situation noting that the city was taking the strongest stance they had seen.

The firm said the resolution could end up “poking the bear.”

“We recommend to our clients to not take actions that are resolutions that create obligations on the city” for a number of reasons, the recommendation reportedly stated.

Amongst the reasons are cities’ reliance on federal funding, issues with attempting to stop ICE, private liability concerns, public duty doctrine, and a potential showdown between multiple law enforcement agencies.

The recommendation stated the the city should not want to risk liability and that it could instead issue a proclamation.

“With a proclamation there is no ‘action taken’ rather it is an expression of sentiment and position,” the recommendation reportedly said. “We are a little less concerned with what goes into a proclamation than compared to a resolution.”

The topic came back up at the Feb. 23 council meeting. Following a brief discussion, Councilman Kuiken motioned for a proclamation and was seconded by Councilman Norm Olsen. The council voted to approve the motion with Councilwoman Jan Davis abstaining due to her role with PCIS.

The proclamation nor a resolution has any actual effect on ICE, which cannot be restricted by a state or local municipality.