Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287g Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses Beaver County commissioners on sheriff's reported 287(g) agreement with ICE; board says no formal vote yet
Summary
A resident urged Beaver County commissioners on Nov. 15 to clarify whether the board would endorse the sheriff's reported plan to partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a 287(g)-style agreement.
A resident urged Beaver County commissioners on Nov. 15 to clarify whether the board would endorse the sheriff's reported plan to partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a 287(g)-style agreement.
Susan Woodridge of ShipCenter Township told commissioners she had watched a prior recording in which the sheriff requested the board's endorsement for the partnership and that she had emailed the commissioners afterward to express disagreement. "I watched the recording last week with Sheriff Pryor requesting your endorsement of his ideas to partner with ICE and enter into the 287(g) program," Woodridge said during public comment. She also told the board she had reviewed litigation in Bucks County and said she believed the sheriff did not need commissioners' approval to sign such an agreement.
A commissioner replied that the board "has not met as a board regarding the 287(g) agreement yet" and that members may meet individually with the sheriff to ask questions before any public action. The same commissioner said they would "meet with the sheriff to get some more information" but that no decision had been scheduled to bring the matter to a vote.
During the discussion, another commissioner framed part of the issue in fiscal terms, saying the county should not have to continue to pay to house people in the county jail who could be housed elsewhere: "If an individual comes into our jail who is not a legal immigrant, we should not have to house them and we should not have to pay for them to be there," the commissioner said.
Solicitor Fidelis told the public the legal questions about the agreement and its consequences are best addressed by the sheriff, since the sheriff has the authority to enter into the agreement. The meeting transcript also records a comment by a speaker that a sheriff named Aaron had been defeated in a recent election; that remark was made by a public commenter and was not presented as a formal finding by the board.
No formal endorsement or vote appears in the meeting record; commissioners directed staff and members to seek more information from the sheriff and to discuss the matter further before taking any formal action.
