Springfield city council ends jail contract with ICE

Congratulations to the good people of Springfield. Elon Glucklich in the RG:

… The council voted unanimously Monday evening to end the ICE contract with the Springfield Police Department. Since 2012, the contract has allowed ICE to rent up to five of its 100 municipal jail beds at a time for inmates transferred there from other ICE detention centers, including those accused only of being in the country illegally.

.. Several [speakers] said they or their family members were undocumented and risked deportation each time they went to the store or dropped a child off at school.

“It’s still a fear for a lot of community members, people who are undocumented and for children,” Springfield resident Ana Molina said. “Especially when their parents go off to work hear and hear ICE is in town. The fear is still there.”

… Councilors then voted to end the contract.

The proposal before the council was to amend the contract to allow “only the housing of ICE detainees charged with felonies or serious misdemeanors, or with such a criminal history.” But Springfield no longer trusts the federal government to make those judgements – and why would they – so they cancelled it all.

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Springfield city council ends jail contract with ICE

  1. Conservative Duck says:

    Complicit.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 8 votes)
    • Amy Adams says:

      In…what, exactly?

      As UOMatters points out, it’s not like the federal government is worthy of trust in these matters.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 6 votes)
  2. Inquiring Minds says:

    So proud of Springfield for taking a bold stand in the face of possible backlash, moving toward positive community-police relationships, treating every resident with dignity.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 14 votes)
  3. justsayuotoducks says:

    It would seem that the practical effect of this decision is that ICE detainees will be immediately bused far away, rather than spending days (or weeks?) in Lane County. Why is that the preferred outcome?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
    • Anonymous says:

      Other perspectives. One, ICE captures fewer humans locally because of the extra costs and inconvenience of busing. Two, our local municipality, that is, us, refuses complicity in ICE’s inhumane policies (or becomes less complicit). Three, policy makers and opinion makers, when they think of Eugene-Springfield, realize we are an organized and vocal community willing to work to protect human rights. When people in other communities consider how and whether opposition and resistance can be successful, they have among the available evidence this particular decision.

      Perhaps you’ve heard of the suggestion to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or the better.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 8 votes)
      • justsayuotoducks says:

        Thank you for indulging my curiosity.

        I can’t summon much excitement about this topic myself. Once you’ve been on this ride a few times, you realize that nothing substantial is going to change. The two parties could solve this in about three days if they wanted–everyone knows the approximate terms of a plausible compromise. But both value it more as an ongoing dispute, and so prevent an honorable solution.

        I do wish the protesters would leave our government employees out of it. They’re doing the thankless job they’re paid to do.
        Congress is calling the shots and (with due respect to Truman) that’s where any blame should lie.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.