Seneca County residents urge supervisors not to cooperate with ICE after regional raids

Dozens of residents urged the Seneca County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 9 to avoid formal agreements or operational cooperation with federal immigration authorities after a widely reported raid at a factory in Cato, N.Y.

The public-comment period at the Seneca County Board of Supervisors meeting was dominated by speakers who described fear in immigrant communities, raised questions about local law-enforcement involvement in federal actions, and called for transparency if any agreements exist between the county and federal agencies.

Reverend Dr. Lea Antwala of Seneca Falls told the board she opposed the county signing “any agreements with ICE,” describing immigration enforcement as an unfamiliar and costly process for many families. Antwala said racial profiling by federal agents is now permitted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and warned that people could be detained at work or separated from their children.

Rachel Weil, a Seneca Falls resident, cited reporting about the Cato factory raid and said witnesses described federal agents breaking into the building with crowbars and not allowing workers to retrieve documentation from their cars. Weil said local officials had not provided clear answers about the nature of the alleged felony that prompted the raid and urged the board to confirm whether Seneca County has signed any voluntary agreements — including 287(g) arrangements — that would involve local officers in immigration enforcement.

Multiple speakers stressed the economic impact of immigration enforcement. Nikki Slater, from the village of Waterloo, cited 2023 data from the American Immigration Council — saying New York State’s foreign-born residents contribute roughly $160 billion to the economy and pay about $74.8 billion in taxes — and urged supervisors to consider those figures before authorizing cooperation.

Other residents described personal and family histories of immigration, arguing immigrants are contributors who support agriculture and local businesses. Several speakers, including Jean Gilroy and Richard Olsen, thanked the sheriff’s office for past assistance but asked the board to withhold county resources from immigration enforcement except as required by law.

Supervisor and public comments at the meeting confirmed that, as of the meeting, the county sheriff had not signed a 287(g) agreement. Several speakers asked the board to commit to public notice and debate before signing any agreements that would expand local immigration‑enforcement duties.

Board members did not introduce or vote on any immigration-related agreements during the meeting. The public-comment speakers requested formal guarantees and greater transparency about any current or future cooperative arrangements with federal immigration authorities.