Mayor LaGrand dismissed the dozens of comments during the City Commission meeting where people said they stood in solidarity with Cosecha’s sanctuary policy demands

During the public comment period at Tuesday’s Grand Rapids City Commission meeting there were dozens of people who spoke up about their opposition to Flock cameras in Grand Rapids, but they also said they stood in solidarity with the six sanctuary policy demands from Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE.

Despite the public speaking in support of the sanctuary policy demands, Mayor LaGrand did not address these demands and instead told people who spoke up in support to merely go to the City’s Office of Public Accountability (OPA) section to see what the city was already doing to support immigrants.

I mentioned the 5 items listed on the OPA site in Wednesday’s GRIID article, but wanted to revisit the list with a more robust analysis.

Here are the 5 points listed from the City in response to Cosecha and GR Rapid Response sanctuary policy demands they introduced in January of 2025.

• The City does not operate a detention facility or jail. Kent County operates the county jail.
• The City does not have a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
• The City does not enforce immigration detainers.
• GRPD is prohibited from conducting investigations or making arrests based solely on a person’s immigration status.
• GRPD’s Foreign Nationals Policy prohibits collaboration with ICE on investigations.

I will address these 5 points, along with the 6 sanctuary policy demands from Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE. According to an March article from the National Immigration Law Center, it states:

Last April, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons said he wanted to see an immigration detention system that runs “like Prime, but for human beings.” It was a preview of the human rights abuses that would come under Trump. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is pursuing plans to cage people in dozens of massive warehouses across the country in what they’re calling their “Detention Reengineering Initiative.”

The first point from the City of Grand Rapids that they do not operate a detention facility or jail, they misunderstand the demand from Cosecha which says, “Policies that oppose the establishment of detention centers in the city and county limits.” What is being asked is that the City not allow any future ICE detention facilities in the City of Grand Rapids, like what was proposed in Romulus, Michigan earlier this year, which was to use an empty warehouse.

The city says that they, “do not have a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” While this is true, the Cosecha demand is for the city to adopt a policy that would “ban future 298(g) agreements with ICE.” This seems rather clear and it would prohibit the GRPD from essentially being deputized by ICE to enforcement US immigration laws. The Trump Administration is providing financial incentives for local police departments.

In point three on the OPA page it says, “The City does not enforce immigration detainers.” On the surface this is true, but City Officials and the GRPD need to recognize that the Kent County Sheriff’s Office does engage in detainers for ICE since March of 2025, according to their own memo that people had to submit a FOIA request to obtain. Also, the issue of ICE detainers was not a demand from Cosecha to the city.  

Point 5 states, the “GRPD’s Foreign Nationals Policy prohibits collaboration with ICE on investigations.” You can read the GRPD’s Foreign National Policy here, but to be clear part of this policy does state: “The policy allows officers to provide assistance to federal immigration authorities when there is an emergency that poses an immediate danger to public safety or federal agents.”

The Foreign Nationals Policy aside, what Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE know is that the GRPD regularly provides support to ICE during arrests of undocumented immigrants, like the case of Byron Martinez.

The GRPD also provides support for ICE when their agents are attempting to abduct immigrants at the ISAP office, especially when, 1) GR Rapid Response to ICE volunteers are trying to prevent those abductions; or more recently 2) when people are trying to prevent the for profit GEO Group from transporting ICE abducted immigrants from the ICE deployment office at 517 Ottawa NW.

Mayor LaGrand referred to the incident at the 517 Ottawa ICE office as the GRPD stopping people from blocking an alleyway. Those in positions of authority can justify anything they want, and indeed have done so throughout history. A big part of the problem is the narrative that the GRPD and Mayor LaGrand want to use. For the people on the scene they were responding to a GR Rapid Response to ICE call, where ICE had earlier abducted an immigrant in Grand Rapids and brought them to the 517 Ottawa ICE office. Once the abducted immigrant was processed the GEO Group-owned van that was parked inside the 517 Ottawa ICE office would then transport the abducted immigrant to the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan.

The people who were blocking the alleyway were attempting to prevent the GEO Group van from departing because ICE had abducted another immigrant from this community. Those responding would not call what they did a violation, rather they would call what they did their obligation to practice solidarity with immigrants targeted by ICE and to either disrupt or reduce that harm that ICE had committed and the profiting of the GEO Group, which has a contract with ICE to run the detention center in Baldwin.

Lastly, it seems clear that moving forward that Mayor LaGrand will not take seriously the Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE sanctuary policy demands. The Mayor will simply refer people to the OPA page that lists their responses, which are empty claims that do nothing to support undocumented immigrants. Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have plenty of evidence of GRPD assisting ICE and will continue to press their demands, along with practicing solidarity with undocumented immigrants.