Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement And Local Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Ashland County to adopt sheriff policy and host listening session after restaurant raid
Summary
During public comment, residents described a recent restaurant raid and urged the county to adopt a sheriff''s office policy limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, provide a public listening session, and formally state the county''s commitment to migrant neighbors; no formal action was taken at the meeting.
Public commenters at an Ashland County Board meeting this week urged supervisors to adopt a formal policy limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and to hold a listening session for concerned residents.
"It is the duty of thinking people to not be on the side of the executioners," said Nick Vanderpine, who identified himself as a "water protector and today a democracy protector," and who described recent regional arrests and two workers being removed during a raid at an Ashland restaurant. Vanderpine called on local police to provide clearer communication about enforcement and invoked his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when discussing interactions with law enforcement.
Beth Garrett, an Ashland resident, told the board she wanted the county to support UW Extension and also to consider noncooperation with "a federal agency that has shown itself to be lawless," asking that the board "make a statement as a body to our migrant neighbors that says you are safe here" and that the sheriff''s office publish or review its written policy governing interactions with federal immigration authorities.
Bailey Kroll, who said they were speaking in support of agenda item 5, also asked that Ashland County "take a stance against" cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and recommended a listening session so people could describe how enforcement actions have affected community safety.
Board members acknowledged the comments but made no immediate policy decisions. The presiding officer reminded speakers that public comment is generally for agenda items; later in the meeting Supervisor Liz asked that the item be placed on a future agenda so "people can know their rights in our community and feel safe." No formal vote or directive to staff occurred during the session.
What happens next: Supervisors indicated willingness to add an agenda item for future discussion; residents requested a listening session and a written review of sheriff protocols.
