Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration 287g topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to study and publicize 287(g) jail‑enforcement program after residents raise costs and civil‑rights concerns
Summary
Public commenters and councilors debated potential participation in the federal 287(g) immigration program; the council held discussion only and directed education and outreach before any action.
Oconee County Council devoted substantial public comment and discussion on Jan. 31 to section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a federal program that can authorize trained local officers to investigate immigration status for people once they are in custody.
Speakers from the Hispanic community, faith leaders and longtime county residents warned that participation could erode trust in law enforcement, impose significant local costs and expose the county to civil‑rights litigation. Reverend Rampus Mulye, pastor of Foothills Church in Seneca and leader of the church’s Hispanic ministry, told the council that other counties have faced large costs tied to immigration enforcement and that Charleston County experienced annual costs about $4 million with only partial federal reimbursement.
"This program doesn't impact just budgets," Mulye said in public comment. "It also asked our local officers to enforce policies that can be unconstitutional. The 2 87 g program asked law enforcement officers to, and I quote, detain people that are suspected of being here illegally." He urged the council to consider the fiscal and civil‑liberty implications before acting.
Mary Parker, a resident who said only three other South Carolina counties had adopted 287(g), warned of trust erosion that could reduce reporting of crimes and said immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility.
Other speakers argued for greater enforcement of immigration laws. Several commenters and at least one council member framed 287(g) as a tool to ensure that people arrested for crimes have their immigration status checked while detained. A council member clarified during the meeting that the program the council was discussing is a jail‑enforcement model—training selected deputies to work with federal authorities while individuals are in custody, not a program that authorizes deputies to make immigration arrests in the community.
Councilors said the county had not done a good job of explaining the program to the public. One council member urged more public education via radio, the county website and other media before any decision. The council took no formal vote to adopt 287(g) at the meeting; instead members agreed to gather more information and publicize the program details so misconceptions could be addressed.
Council staff noted the sheriff's office had made contact with Homeland Security about the program and referenced recent media coverage about other counties’ participation. No implementation timeline or budget commitment was recorded; the council indicated that additional guidance and potential reimbursement details would be sought before any formal action.
