Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Martinsburg resident urges county audit after alleged ICE action at Tuscarora development
Summary
A Martinsburg resident told the Berkeley County Commission he witnessed or learned of an ICE enforcement action at the Estates of Tuscarora and asked the commission for transparency and an audit of the developer; commissioners took the comment under advisement but made no formal commitment on action.
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Corey Rodriguez, a Martinsburg resident, told the Berkeley County Commission that he returned from vacation to find what he described as an ICE enforcement action at the Estates of Tuscarora development and asked the commission to investigate.
Rodriguez said migrants ran through Tuscarora Creek and that "armed ICE agents" chased them across nearby property. He asked the commission for transparency and for an audit of the residential developer responsible for the project, saying "I would like an audit of this developer" and asking whether other county projects had been raided.
The public comment period produced no formal response on the record from county leadership beyond the president’s routine acknowledgment. Commissioners did not announce a follow-up investigation or vote at the meeting. Rodriguez asked whether the county would inform residents if federal enforcement activity were occurring locally; the concern highlighted community safety fears and questions about developer oversight.
No county staff or legal authority was recorded offering details about the alleged enforcement action, nor was there a recorded response from ICE in the meeting record. The commission did not take immediate formal action during this session; Rodriguez’s request for an audit remained a public-record request and a topic for potential staff follow-up.
Next steps: The commission did not vote on or accept a staff directive during the meeting. Any investigation, audit or information-sharing with the public would require a separate staff report or a formal motion at a future meeting.

