The proposed legislation restricting the use of city property in regards to civil immigration enforcement (ICE) passed after an incredibly lengthy four hour session. Summary of the related extensive discussion is below along with the answers to some procedural questions heard over the past six weeks.
Proposed Legislation: Ordinance 2025-065
Title: Amending the Municipal Code, Adding Title 7, Chapter 8: Restricted Use of City Property.
Core Provisions:
- Restriction of Property: It restricts city-owned or controlled property (such as parking lots and garages) from being used for staging or operations related to federal civil immigration enforcement.
- Warrant Requirement: It mandates that federal immigration actions cannot occur on city property without a judicial warrant (an amendment passed to add the word “judicial”) and proper identification.
- Data Privacy: It prohibits the use of city data for civil immigration enforcement purposes.
- Signage and Reporting: It directs city staff to post signage regarding these restrictions and to report any violations.
- Enforcement Mechanism: The ordinance empowers the City Administrator to request federal agents to leave if they are commandeering property and allows the city to pursue legal action (lawsuits) if federal agents refuse to comply. The Batavia Police Department is not involved in the enforcement of this ordinance.
Benefits Discussed
Supporters of the ordinance, including several alderpersons and public commenters, highlighted the following benefits:
- Community Safety and Trust: Proponents argued that the ordinance ensures all residents feel safe engaging with city services (like police and schools) without fear of deportation, thereby increasing overall community safety.
- Human Dignity and Rights: Speakers emphasized that the ordinance protects the civil rights and dignity of residents, sending a clear message that the city stands against bigotry and supports its immigrant community.
- Clarity and Local Control: It creates clearly defined rules for law enforcement operating within the city and exercises the city’s 10th Amendment right to control its own property.
- Accountability and Documentation: Even if physical intervention is impossible, the ordinance establishes a framework for documenting federal overreach, which can be used in future legal actions or reported to state commissions.
- Symbolic Value: Several supporters acknowledged the symbolic nature of the ordinance but argued it is a necessary moral stance to show the city “has the back” of its vulnerable residents, similar to accessibility ordinances.
- Alignment with State Law: Supporters noted it reinforces and expands upon the existing Illinois Trust Act by covering non-police city staff and property, not just law enforcement agencies.
Concerns Discussed
Opponents and those expressing hesitation raised the following concerns regarding the ordinance’s practicality and risks:
- Enforceability and Supremacy Clause: The Kane County State’s Attorney and some alderpersons warned that the ordinance might violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as local law cannot override federal law. There was concern the city cannot legally stop “lawful” federal civil immigration enforcement.
- Legal Risks and Costs: There were fears that passing an enforceable ordinance (rather than a resolution) could make Batavia a “test case” for federal lawsuits, potentially costing taxpayers significant money in legal fees and risking federal funding.
- Operational Risks for Staff: Concerns were raised about placing city staff (such as the City Administrator or public works employees) in dangerous confrontations with armed federal agents by requiring them to enforce the ordinance.
- Ineffectiveness and “Virtue Signaling”: Critics argued the ordinance creates a “false sense of security” because federal agents could simply stage operations just off city property (e.g., across the street or at Fermilab), making the law practically ineffective.
- Redundancy: Some argued the Illinois Trust Act already provides sufficient protection, making a local ordinance unnecessary or duplicative.
- Wording and Focus: Some alderpersons felt the ordinance was rushed and poorly worded, specifically criticizing sections regarding face mask removal requirements for federal agents, which they felt were unenforceable and dangerous. Others felt the language focused too much on city property rather than the immigrant community itself.
- Limited Scope: The majority of the provisions outlined in the ordinance do not apply to any occurrence occurring outside of city property (which is very limited).
Outcome
Despite the concerns and a failed motion to table the discussion, the ordinance was recommended by the Committee of the Whole (9-5 vote) and subsequently passed by the City Council (9-5 vote) later that evening.
Procedural Questions and Answers
How do items get on the Batavia City Council agenda?
Currently, only two of the fourteen alderpersons are required to place an item on a future city council agenda. To call a special meeting three of the fourteen alderpersons are required. (Ordinance 1-5-5 and 1-5-6)
While there is no formal rule requiring the full council to be notified, agenda additions are traditionally announced during the “Other” business portion of a public meeting. When this informal step is skipped, it is sometimes referred to as “backdooring” an item.
How does the number of alderpersons in Batavia compare to other communities?
Batavia has fourteen alderpersons, which is more than most neighboring communities. West Chicago also has fourteen. For comparison, Geneva and St. Charles both have ten alderpersons, Naperville has eight, and Aurora has twelve.
How do speakers get to speak at city council meetings?
Anyone can speak during the public comment portion of a meeting or when a specific agenda item is discussed. Speakers are not required to state their town of residence or address. In meetings with numerous speakers, comments are typically limited to three minutes or less.
For invited speakers (such as an expert or official), an alderperson makes a request to the City Administrator, who then determines if the invitation is appropriate and will put time on the agenda.
Author: Jim Fahrenbach
Leave a Reply