Residents urge Kankakee County Board to refuse cooperation with ICE
Loading...
Summary
Two public commenters asked the board to declare noncooperation with ICE and to prevent federal immigration agents from using county property, citing community fear, declines in service use, and documented local enforcement incidents.
Two Kankakee County residents urged the County Board on Feb. 10 to publicly oppose local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to take steps that would discourage federal enforcement operations on county property.
Jim Dugan, introduced by the chair as the first public commenter, told the board that recent nationwide enforcement incidents — and the perceived lack of accountability for agents — have chilled community cooperation with local law enforcement and public services. “These ICE agents are not trying to make anyone safe or enforce immigration policy,” Dugan said, adding that the presence of masked agents “sows mistrust” and forces community members “to be silent and invisible.” He asked the board to “make a statement declaring that you do not seek nor support ICE activity in Kankakee County” and to bar ICE from county property beyond what the law requires.
Brandon Hudspeth, who identified himself as a volunteer with Connect Kankakee, described a local rapid-response network his group helps run and said his organization documented 18 enforcement events in 2025. Hudspeth warned that enforcement activity reduces local use of medical and court services and harms businesses. He cited legal changes and protections raised in other states, saying, “state legislators came together to pass the Bivens Act creating a $10,000 liability for agents that violate constitutional rights, creating 1000 foot perimeter around courthouses,” and urged local action on education, response systems and noncooperation where legally possible.
The comments were made during the public-comment portion of the board meeting; no formal board action on ICE cooperation was recorded during the session. The board did not vote on a resolution or policy change during the meeting. The chair acknowledged the requests and moved on to other agenda items.
What’s next: Petitioning the board for a formal policy or proclamation would require a future agenda item or an accepted motion; as of Feb. 10 the board took no formal action to adopt a noncooperation policy.
