Rockingham County schedules public hearing on proposed ICE detainee contract after large public opposition

The Rockingham County Board of Commissioners voted Sept. 25 to schedule a special meeting with a public hearing and a subsequent vote on whether to permit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to use beds at the county jail.

The decision followed more than an hour of public comment during the board’s regular meeting, during which dozens of residents, faith leaders and advocacy-group members urged the commissioners not to allow ICE to detain individuals in the jail. Speakers raised concerns about due process, solitary confinement, the effect on trust in local law enforcement and moral objections to contracting with federal immigration enforcement.

The motion to schedule the special meeting and public hearing was made by the chair of the Board of Commissioners and seconded; the commissioners present voted to place the contract before the board for a later public hearing and vote.

Why it matters: Residents said the proposed contract would change the role the county jail plays in the community and would subject people to detention without the protections speakers said are guaranteed by the Constitution. Opponents called any revenue from such an agreement “blood money” and said the county should not accept federal funds to house detainees where they believe detainees could be held without adequate due process or oversight.

During the public comment period, speakers described specific concerns. Kathleen Slover, a Portsmouth resident and gun-safety activist, warned that partnerships with ICE could “erode trust and legitimacy in our local law enforcement,” making it harder for community policing and crisis-response efforts to function. Another speaker, who identified herself as a long-time educator and parent, said the idea of detaining people “torn from their families” was “incomprehensible” and urged commissioners to reject the contract.

Several commenters cited distant examples of alleged abuses in other jurisdictions. A speaker who identified himself as a neighbor from Stratford County urged the board to consider that facility’s experience, saying detention there produced very high rates of solitary confinement and documented incidents of mistreatment. Other residents recounted personal or familial histories that, they said, made the county’s potential participation with ICE personally disturbing.

Board response and next steps: The board’s chair said the county will advertise a public hearing date and give the community additional opportunity to express views before any final vote. The motion to schedule that special meeting passed with the commissioners present voting in favor; the board did not take a final vote on any contract at the Sept. 25 session.

The board did not provide substantive contract text or the draft memorandum of understanding during the Sept. 25 meeting. Commissioners said the purpose of scheduling the special meeting is to allow a broader forum and formal public hearing where the contract details can be presented and the public may comment before the board votes.

Public comment record: More than 40 people spoke in person and via Zoom during the meeting’s public comment period. Speakers included family members, clergy and elected officials; one caller identified herself as a state representative (Linda Haskins, Rockingham 11) and said the issue should not be treated as partisan. Several speakers asked the commissioners to ensure a widely publicized, well-attended public hearing so more residents can participate before a final decision.

What the board said: The board’s chair acknowledged the strong turnout and said the county will hold a public hearing and then consider a vote. Commissioners did not debate contract terms during the Sept. 25 meeting and did not provide details such as the number of beds under negotiation, expected revenue, staffing clauses, or whether the county would accept transfers at the request of ICE. Those specifics were not presented and therefore were not part of the board’s Sept. 25 action.

Looking ahead: The board’s scheduling of a public hearing sets a formal next step in the county’s process. Residents and organizations planning to testify said they expect broader outreach before the hearing; the board said it will advertise the date and make meeting recordings available. Until the special meeting and public hearing occur, no contract has been approved by the board.