Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eldersburg resident urges commissioners to oppose sheriff’s planned 287(g) implementation
Summary
A Carroll County resident told commissioners she and a group of residents oppose the sheriff's 287(g) agreement with ICE and urged the board to ask the sheriff to end the program before its planned implementation Aug. 1.
A resident of Eldersburg urged the Carroll County Board of Commissioners on July 24 to tell the sheriff she represents that the county does not support using local tax dollars to carry out federal immigration enforcement duties under a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Natalie Sanchez, who identified herself as an Eldersburg resident, said in public comment that the sheriff’s office plans to implement its 287(g) program in August and asked the commissioners, who approve the sheriff’s annual budget, to tell the sheriff to end the agreement.
Why it matters: 287(g) agreements authorize trained local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement tasks on behalf of ICE. Opponents argue such agreements divert local resources, erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, and may reduce crime reporting by community members; supporters say they assist federal enforcement. The board did not take action at the meeting in response to the comment but staff noted the sheriff’s office monitors commission meetings.
What the speaker said Sanchez told the commissioners she and “a large group of Carroll County residents” oppose the planned implementation, which she said is scheduled for Aug. 1. She cited studies she said show 287(g) agreements can divert local law-enforcement resources, increase racial profiling, and undermine community trust. She also said the sheriff’s office had trained 12 detention-center officers, per a county Freedom of Information response, and that Carroll County is being asked to pay for officer time and training through the county budget.
Board response and next steps Commissioners did not take a formal vote or issue a statement on the matter during the meeting. A commissioner noted that sheriff’s staff listen to the meetings and encouraged the speaker to submit questions by email so county staff can respond. Sanchez’s request that the board tell the sheriff to end the agreement was not acted on at this session.
Ending: The public comment is on the record; commissioners did not schedule a board action on 287(g) during this meeting.
