El Paso County residents press commissioners to oppose ICE detention centers; chair says state law limits local action

Dozens of residents urged the El Paso County Board of Commissioners during public comment to oppose proposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities in Colorado Springs, while county leaders said state law constrains local action.

At the July meeting in Colorado Springs, the board’s chair told the audience that “that is not on our agenda for today” and that Colorado law limits local government participation in ICE detention matters. The chair cited a state statute during that exchange and said members could still hear public comment but could not take substantive action at the meeting.

The comment period lasted up to one hour, with each person allotted two minutes, and many speakers used their time to demand that county officials speak out. David Trankel, a longtime resident, told commissioners, “You have the power. You have the voices,” urging them to defend constitutional protections. Robin Eiser, another commenter, told the board, “Please make your voices heard. Use your power for good.”

Speakers described alleged detention conditions elsewhere, cited reports they said showed poor sanitation and limited access to counsel, and warned of local impacts if facilities opened here. Gavin Rainey said a loud local delegation could reduce the chance of a facility being sited locally. Several speakers also connected the issue to historical detention and internment programs, citing Camp Amache and urging the county not to replicate past abuses.

Not all public remarks opposed ICE action. Victoria Tonsky, identifying herself as a longtime resident, said the county should “support the efforts of our federal partners, including ICE, to secure our borders, enforce immigration laws, and remove criminal illegal aliens from our communities,” and expressed concern about what she described as “failed catch-and-release policies.”

Speakers also asked the board about past actions by local law enforcement. Commenters criticized prior coordination between local agencies and federal immigration enforcement and questioned whether county policy or budget decisions could affect future operations. One resident noted the commission previously joined litigation over state restrictions on local cooperation with ICE and asked whether that legal action remains active.

The chair reiterated that, under the statute cited at the meeting, the county’s formal options are constrained and that people who want action could submit written comments or other contact methods described by staff. The board did not take a formal vote on the subject at the meeting; public comment concluded and the agenda continued.

The commissioners did not announce next steps specific to ICE facilities during the meeting. The public record indicates the board accepted oral comments and directed residents to other avenues for submitting input.

Ending: The issue remained in public comment at this meeting without formal county action. Residents urged the board to act or publicly oppose detention centers; commissioners emphasized legal constraints and encouraged continued written input and follow-up through established channels.