However, Indivisible Fremont believes that the Council should still present and introduce the ordinance as recommended by Union City Staff and City Attorney’s Office.
Council members raised reasonable concerns that, as a local jurisdiction, Union City lacks the authority to dictate federal immigration policy due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2). However, this does not require Union City to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in civil immigration enforcement activities. Under current U.S. law, “[s]tate and local officials may not perform the functions of federal immigration officers absent a written agreement between the state or local government entity and DHS,” U.S.C. § 1357(g)(2), (3), (5). Furthermore, local jurisdictions are allowed to prohibit certain activities on property which they own or control. Many of your neighbors have used this power to prohibit the activity of civil immigration enforcement on property which they own or control.
Given that the Compassionate City Resolution already directs that “Union City shall not enter into any partnerships or written agreement with federal authorities for the sake of enforcing federal civil immigration law,” it is reasonable to assume that the proposed ordinance, which simply prohibits the use of city resources and property for civil immigration enforcement, would be admissible.
Council members raised reasonable concerns that the ordinance would introduce a false sense of protection among residents, with Council sharing that the original compassionate city resolution had been crafted to avoid language giving unreasonable expectations of safety. However, Council can direct staff to be specific and transparent in what this ordinance would and would not do. The title and body of the ordinance is specific that it is “Restricting The Use Of City-owned or City-controlled Property for Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities.” The Compassionate City page on the Union City website can have the “Frequently Asked Question” section extended with additional information. The City and Council members can further utilize the city newsletter or social media changes to continue to clarify the scope of the ordinance to the public.
This ordinance is a necessary addition to support the Compassionate City resolution. We recognize that Council has asked for the resolution to be amended so that section 8 also includes “city property” in addition to “city resources.” However, the resolution on its own lacks enforcement authority to enact civil penalties. Other jurisdictions have been able to use local ordinances to pursue relief from ICE when violations occur.
In September 2025, the city of Portland, Oregon, issued a land use violation notice for ICE, finding that the federal government violated its land use approval for the facility by holding detainees for longer than 12 hours and overnight. In December 2025, the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, issued a formal ceaseand-desist letter to the Department of Homeland Security over unauthorized use of city-owned park property for federal immigration enforcement operations. In January 2026, the city of San Diego, California, issued a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense for illegally entering and building fences on city land.
With the federal administration pursuing the construction of two ICE detention facilities in the Bay Area in Gilroy and Dublin, it is more necessary than ever for cities to consider how they will respond to a surge in federal immigration enforcement and concurrently to set up both the ordinances and systems now that let them do all they can to protect immigrant communities . The passage of this ordinance is a necessary advancement of Union City’s existing Compassionate City resolution, granting the city the ability “to pursue civil action if appropriate” when city land is used for unauthorized civil immigration purposes.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the Council present the ordinance again for consideration. We believe that further consideration of this resolution will give staff the opportunity to address any concerns and will ensure the ordinance reflects the needs of the broader community.
Reconsideration would give the Council another opportunity to pass this necessary ordinance while making sure it is supported by the most complete and current information available.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued service to our community. We respectfully ask that this request be given careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Bryan Tor
Indivisible Fremont CA