Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Clear Creek officials to reaffirm state law barring local cooperation with federal civil immigration arrests
Summary
Two Evergreen residents asked commissioners and the sheriff on Feb. 4 to commit that Clear Creek County will not participate in ICE 287(g) deportation operations and reminded officials of Colorado law prohibiting detaining people for civil immigration purposes.
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two Evergreen residents used the Feb. 4 public‑comment period to ask county leaders to guard against any future local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) deputation agreements.
Penny Moore told the board the group’s letter — also provided to Sheriff Matt Harris — asked the county to reaffirm Colorado law that restricts state and local officials from detaining or arresting people for civil immigration purposes. “As you are aware, ICE’s 287(g) program authorizes ICE to delegate state and local law enforcement officers to partner in the arrest and removal of undocumented immigrants,” Moore said. “This program has been widely criticized for misuse, primarily for targeting individuals with minor offenses and creating a climate of fear amongst immigrants.”
Moore and Candy Decker asked commissioners to be proactive: they described recent national policy shifts and a 2024 ACLU court victory involving a Teller County agreement as reasons the county should confirm it will follow Colorado statute. Moore said the group had submitted hard copies of their letter to the board and emailed a digital copy for the record.
Why it matters: The residents framed their remarks as a preventive request — Clear Creek has not implemented an ICE 287(g) agreement — and they asked the sheriff and commissioners to make their support for Colorado’s statutory limitations explicit.
Ending: Commissioners accepted the letter and indicated staff would add the submission to the meeting packet. No formal action or vote on the request was recorded during the meeting.

