Residents tell commissioners federal immigration contract risks legal and community harms
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Public commenters at the Dec. 30 Mahoning County commissioners meeting warned that the sheriff's contract with federal authorities enables immigration-only arrests in the county, cited dozens of detainees listed for immigration offenses and said pending federal lawsuits raise potential county liabilities.
Gina Powell, a Canfield resident, told the Mahoning County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 30 that she reviewed jail records and found dozens of people listed with federal immigration offenses only, and she warned the county's contract with federal authorities could permit local participation in immigration-only arrests.
Powell said "the 62 people that are in there now, their only federal offense is immigration," and told commissioners she feared such enforcement would harm trust in policing, depress church and school attendance and hurt local businesses. Chris Harris of Canfield later told the board that reporting and court actions in the region show federal judges are reviewing detentions where people were held without bond; he said about 17 lawsuits were then pending in Cleveland, Akron and Youngstown and that at least four of those involved people who had been held in Mahoning County Jail. "These folks are getting released," Harris said of federal-court orders, and he framed the lawsuits as a county liability because the county signed the contract that governs custody.
Commissioners acknowledged the public comments and suggested the sheriff would be the appropriate official to explain jail operations and any conditions of the contract. Board speakers also noted that federal authorities and federal judges can review individual cases; no commissioner moved to direct staff to change the contract or to take immediate formal action during the meeting. One commissioner said, "Sheriff Green could probably give you a better depiction of what's happening with respect to those types of investigations." The public commenters urged scrutiny of the county's role and cautioned about potential civil-rights and due-process exposures.
The board took no vote on the sheriff's contract during the meeting. The comments are on the record and the commissioners did not indicate a timetable for further review; commissioners instead moved into regular agenda business including approvals of minutes, agreements, travel and resolutions.