Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Rutherford County to exit 287(g) agreement as public comment grows
Summary
Multiple residents at the Dec. 11 Rutherford County commission meeting urged the board to push the sheriff’s office to exit the county’s 287(g) immigration agreement, saying it has caused fear and alleged misconduct by ICE and local law enforcement.
Scores of residents told the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 11 that the county’s participation in a 287(g) immigration agreement with federal authorities is harming immigrant and citizen residents and should end.
At the start of public comments, Pamela Jones of District 20 accused the sheriff and his office of lying about the agreement and said the arrangement lets “masked goons” pursue families in the streets. Jacob Jones said the county’s participation in 287(g) “volunteers our sheriff’s department” for what he described as a racially targeted national program and asked the commission to demand removal of the sheriff’s office from the agreement. Violet Walter said Sheriff Mike Fitzhugh signed onto the agreement on Aug. 8 and later denied doing so when questioned at a meeting in August.
Former deputy Will Leahy told commissioners he spent 15 years coordinating ICE holds and described the practices he observed nationally as violating the Fourth Amendment. Several other speakers, including Tatiana Silvis and Anna Karina Lorenzana DeWitt, described widespread fear among immigrant families and urged the commission or the sheriff to cancel the contract.
Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the 287(g) agreement at this meeting. During later discussion on county powers, commissioners acknowledged limits on direct authority over the sheriff’s office — the commission’s primary formal lever is budgetary approval — but several members pledged to pursue more information from state lobbyists about proposed legislation affecting local control of landfill permitting and to remain responsive to public concerns raised during the hearings.
The meeting record shows repeated public calls for transparency and accountability; speakers asked the county to use available oversight tools and to press the sheriff’s office to clarify or rescind the agreement.
What happens next: commissioners noted the county commission cannot directly sign the 287(g) contract for the sheriff but can raise constituent concerns and consider budgetary or oversight measures; no formal action to end the agreement was recorded at the Dec. 11 meeting.
