Residents urge Sussex County to refuse ICE operations and oppose proposed Roxbury detention site
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Dozens of residents used the public-comment period to urge the commissioners to limit or condemn ICE activity, and several speakers asked the county to join Roxbury and other towns in opposing a proposed Department of Homeland Security warehouse-to-detention conversion in Roxbury.
Multiple residents addressed the Board of County Commissioners during an extended public-comment period to raise concerns about immigration enforcement, ICE tactics, and a reported Department of Homeland Security plan to purchase a warehouse in Roxbury (public commenters characterized the planned facility as a detention center).
Ken Collins of Andover Township described ICE operations in the state and urged the commissioners to adopt changes to county policy that would conform with civil-rights guidance (Ken Collins: "They asked for a substantive response within 2 weeks..."). Sierra Wilson (Bud Lake/Stanhope) asked whether Sussex County would follow Mount Olive's lead in requiring law-enforcement cooperation with ICE only on judicial warrants and whether the county would prohibit ICE raids on county property in line with a state announcement mentioned that morning (Sierra Wilson: "Will Sussex County be doing the same for county property?").
Other commenters, including Kathy Brennan and Pamela Grama, urged the board to denounce detention centers and to consider the moral and practical impacts of such facilities on local towns and infrastructure (Kathy Brennan: "This would be a travesty for this area and for the state... Sussex County towns such as Byram, Stanhope, and Hopatcong would be negatively impacted."). Several speakers also called for the county to pass a resolution opposing detention centers or to support towns that already have taken stances against them.
Why it matters: A DHS detention facility in or near Sussex County could affect local sewer infrastructure, emergency services, and community perceptions; residents asked the board for explicit policy direction to limit county cooperation with ICE-related activities.
What the meeting record shows: Dozens of public commenters expressed a mix of factual claims, moral appeals, and policy requests. No formal county policy change or vote on a resolution opposing ICE or the Roxbury facility occurred at this meeting; the board moved later into executive session to discuss Newton Green policy and PFAS settlement litigation, but the transcript contains no recorded directive or formal action on ICE or the Roxbury site.
Provenance: topicintro SEG 745; topfinish SEG 1480.
Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are drawn from the meeting record and include Ken Collins, Sierra Wilson, Kathy Brennan, Pamela Grama, and other public commenters.