FCI Dublin

Urged a formal resolution opposing the Dublin ICE facility, saying silence will be construed as consent.

Argued opposing the Dublin facility could push detainees to distant states; said the council was right to previously stay out of the issue.

Cited the DHS letter stating no ICE facility is planned at FCI Dublin and argued the council should respond to actual actions, not anticipated ones.

A Dublin resident whose father survived the Bataan Death March, drew parallels to detention camps and urged support for the ICE-out-of-Dublin resolution effort.

Urged the council to decline action on the Dublin facility, calling it a federal matter outside Pleasanton's jurisdiction that diverts staff time.

A vigil attendee, made a final plea to keep ICE out of the community.

Argued the facility conversion is impractical, that opposition speakers want to abolish ICE, and cited crime victims including Kate Steinle and Laken Riley.

An immigrant who became a citizen 10 years ago, described carrying her passport out of fear and asked the council to oppose the facility as a matter of community character.

Criticized ICE operations and urged the council to oppose a detention facility in the Tri-Valley, invoking Pleasanton's character values.

Said ICE is already operating in the area and asked what the council will do to protect immigrant neighbors; requested a resolution reaffirming the city's commitment.

Read names of people who died in ICE custody and argued DHS cannot be trusted; urged the council to join Dublin and Alameda County in opposing the facility.

First-time speaker in 26 years of living here, thanking the council for directing staff to confer with Livermore and the county about the possible ICE use of FCI Dublin.

A nearly 50-year resident urged the council to reconsider its earlier refusal to act on FCI Dublin, noting Dublin and Alameda County both passed resolutions against ICE presence.

A 70-year-old grandmother who protests weekly with her 91-year-old mother asked whether it would still be safe to protest if ICE comes to the Tri-Valley, and asked the council to speak out.

Returned to restate his concern and asked the council to issue a statement of concern or opposition to an ICE presence in the community.

A descendant of immigrant grandparents warned that ICE presence raises arrests in surrounding communities and urged the council to go on record opposing a detention center, like Dublin and Alameda County did.

Argued an ICE detention center would disrupt the local economy and community, citing conditions in detention and impacts seen in other cities.

A recent Amador Valley graduate said reopening the facility known as the 'rape club' would be complicity in violence and urged the council to say no to FCI Dublin.

Read a first-person account from a Minneapolis mother describing life under ICE operations, arguing the same would happen here if a facility opens in Dublin.

Sympathetic to the concerns but said no ICE plans for the area have been announced, calling the fear premature and asking residents to give city leaders time.

Explained the new federal environmental assessment found the prison unsafe and recommended deactivation, and urged the city to submit comment and consider a resolution opposing immigration detention there.

A 41-year resident asked the council to pass a resolution opposing an ICE/CBP detention facility at the former FCI Dublin site, citing regional interconnectedness and community values.

Supported opposing an ICE facility, citing due-process violations by ICE/DHS and urging denial of detention resources until reform.

A 24-year resident asked the council to pass a resolution opposing repurposing FCI Dublin into an ICE detention center and to instead advocate for housing, education, or healthcare uses.

A 23-year resident asked the council to agendize a resolution formally opposing immigration detention at FCI Dublin, citing hazards and human-rights history.