Residents urge Medina County to bar ICE detention contracts; commissioners take comments, no vote

Dozens of Medina County residents urged the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday to adopt a citizen-drafted resolution that would bar the county from entering into or renewing contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection and limit local participation in civil immigration enforcement.

Mary Emhoff, who read the draft resolution aloud, said the county should "not enter into or renew any contract, agreement, or understanding with US immigration and customs enforcement, customs and border control or other third party federal agencies such as the US Marshal Service for the purpose of detaining individuals on civil immigration grounds in the Medina County Jail" and asked that any federal requests for cooperation be reported publicly to the commissioners (SEG 414–416, SEG 472–473). The draft also asked the county to refuse to hold people beyond their release date based on ICE detainer requests unless a judicial warrant is provided (SEG 436–439).

Supporters said the resolution is a narrow, humane step to protect residents and public safety. "We are asking that you take the step of validating our concerns, committing to what's in the resolution so that we take a stand," Heather Nichols told commissioners, urging affirmation of community concerns while preserving legitimate immigration enforcement (SEG 1597–1605, SEG 1607–1616). Elaine Stone cited local demographics and urged three concrete actions: no new contracts with ICE, no county participation in ICE raids without judicial warrants, and no county property or funds used for ICE operations (SEG 671–676, SEG 682–686).

Speakers described concrete effects on local residents and services. Philip Titterington and others had earlier described services supported by the Human Services Levy; in the public-comment portion, residents recounted fear that family members and workers avoid public institutions and that naturalized citizens sometimes carry documentation to avoid mistaken detentions. Michael Eisner, who said he lives in Solon and is running for Congress, described instances where people seeking naturalization were pulled from lines and criticized the use of administrative rather than judicial warrants (SEG 1024–1033, SEG 1066–1076).

Not all speakers supported the resolution. Melissa Tucker said she favored active cooperation with ICE and argued local law enforcement should respond when public-safety threats occur, asking, "When should Medina officers be involved in ICE raids?" and noting concerns about child safety and community protection (SEG 1218–1226, SEG 1240–1246). She said the county serves residents "who live here legally" and reflected voters' concerns about enforcement (SEG 1261–1267).

Commissioners acknowledged the depth of feeling in public comment and discussed legal and practical limits on local authority. One commissioner noted separation-of-powers concerns and warned that broad restrictions could unintentionally tie the hands of the sheriff or other law-enforcement partners (SEG 1841–1846). The board did not vote on the citizen draft during the meeting; commissioners said they would take remarks under advisement and that staff would follow up on administrative items elsewhere on the agenda.

The public-comment period covered multiple speakers from across Medina County, including people who said they serve as immigration-court monitors and others who described personal family histories. Speakers frequently asked for transparency from federal agencies when operations occur locally and asked that any use of county facilities or resources by federal immigration officials be publicly reported at commissioners' meetings (SEG 458–474).

The meeting record shows commissioners thanked the public for their comments and indicated they would consider them as part of their ongoing duties; no formal action on the citizen-drafted resolution was taken at the meeting.