Multiple residents and immigrant‑advocacy speakers used the Public Safety Committee's public comment period to urge county officials to minimize cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and to improve protections and communication for immigrant residents.

Several speakers said local cooperation with immigration enforcement creates fear that discourages crime reporting and harms local businesses and families. Porfirio Vega (who asked the committee to be known as Johnny Vega), a longtime resident, told legislators: "I urge each one of you today to use the full extent of your local and county authority to formally form a policy of noncooperation with nonessential federal immigration enforcement actions and tactics." Vega framed the issue as one of public safety and fiscal responsibility.

Carlos Soriano, who said he has worked in Sullivan County since 2012, described instances where undocumented workers were reluctant to report wage theft or to file complaints because of fear of immigration enforcement. "People are afraid in the community," Soriano said, and he asked the sheriff and law‑enforcement leaders "to assure our community that they should not be afraid."

Other speakers, including an unnamed commenter who identified concerns about local participation in 287(g) agreements, pressed the committee on whether Sullivan County will participate in agreements that deputize local officers for federal immigration enforcement. The anonymous commenter asked whether the county has refused joint operations and whether the probation department's practices can trigger ICE detentions; the speaker urged the committee to publish what the county is doing to shield victims and mixed‑status families.

Angela Dajuta, regional coordinator for Rural and Migrant Ministry, asked officials to "protect the rights within the law" of immigrant residents and to "walk the walk" on due process, citing recent local police activity that caused fear in the community. Evan Perez, a county employee, framed the issue as a constitutional concern and urged legislators to defend due process and oppose racial profiling.

Speakers suggested policy steps such as declining voluntary ICE detainers in the absence of judicial orders, increasing victim‑service safeguards, publishing a county position on 287(g) participation, and exploring municipal identification programs to help residents access services without fear. No formal committee action was taken during the meeting on these proposals.

Discussion versus action: the remarks were delivered during public comment; they did not prompt a vote or formal directive at the meeting. Committee members acknowledged comments and thanked speakers for raising the concerns, but no policy or procedural change was adopted on the record.

The committee did not provide a public response resolving the questions about probation referrals, 287(g), or specific protocols for ICE access to county facilities during the session; speakers asked for future reporting and clarity.