Residents press Nevada County supervisors to adopt resolution refusing cooperation with ICE
Loading...
Summary
More than 1,000 residents and advocates delivered a petition and urged the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution declining cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and refusing to honor ICE detainers; speakers said fear of enforcement is harming public safety and asked the Board to agendize clear county policy.
At the Board of Supervisors’ Feb. 10 meeting, a succession of residents urged the county to adopt a formal policy limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and to clarify that local agencies would not honor ICE detainers or administrative warrants.
The petition’s organizers told the board they had gathered over 1,000 signatures. Lolo Stone, who identified herself as a District 3 resident, said the petition asks the county “to affirm that Nevada County will follow California law, will not participate in civil immigration enforcement, and not honor ICE detainers or administrative warrants.” Stone asked the board to craft a resolution setting “concrete guardrails” staff can follow.
Speakers tied the call for a resolution to public-safety concerns. Kim Stirla, a District 4 resident, said fear that contact with local government could prompt immigration enforcement harms cooperation with law enforcement and 911 reporting. “When residents fear that contact with local government could expose them and their loved ones to immigration enforcement, everyone here is less safe,” Stirla said.
Others described personal or reported experiences. An extended speaker account reported that during a recent sheriff reporting period ICE made multiple requests to the county jail and that in two cases the sheriff complied; the speaker cited one detainee who later died after transfer to federal custody and urged the board to act. Noga Wazanski, another speaker, said “ICE agents have been terrorizing communities” and asked the Board to agendize a discussion of concrete protective measures.
Board members did not take a procedural vote to adopt a new policy at the meeting. Chair Swethout closed the public-comment period, thanked speakers, and said the Board was listening; speakers and petitioners indicated they will provide draft language and asked the Board to schedule the matter for future consideration.
What happens next: Petitioners said they will continue organizing and provide proposed resolution language to the Board. The meeting record shows no formal action on a county policy at this session.
