Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ice Detention Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stafford supervisors say no ICE application on file as residents urge action
Summary
Stafford County leaders told a packed meeting Feb. 3 there is no county application for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility, while many residents urged the board to take proactive measures—letters, public hearings and zoning blocks—to prevent one from being sited here.
Chairman Deontay Diggs told the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3 that county staff have reviewed documents that prompted public concern and found no formal proposal, permit or application for an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Stafford. “At this time, Stafford County is not aware of any immigration and customs enforcement facility planned, approved, or under development in our community,” Diggs said.
Why it matters: Hundreds of county residents attended the meeting and dozens used the public-comment period to press the board for clear, public steps to oppose any future effort to site a large federal detention operation in Stafford. Speakers said the mere possibility has caused widespread fear in immigrant communities and requested immediate, visible action from local leaders.
Public appeals and examples: Several speakers framed the issue as urgent for families and schools. Jeff Eastland, speaking as a private citizen, urged the board to stand united: “Not here. Not ever.” Teachers and volunteers described students’ and families’ anxiety after public reports; Casey Cook, a local teacher, said a colleague’s recent detention had left students and staff shaken. Multiple speakers asked the board to (a) declare public opposition to any ICE warehouse-style detention facility, (b) send letters to the county’s delegation and the Department of Homeland Security, and (c) schedule a large public hearing to gather community input.
Board response and constraints: Board members repeatedly emphasized that no county-level application has been filed and that county processes (zoning, permitting) would apply if a federal proposal reached the locality. Several supervisors said staff would monitor developments and coordinate with state and federal contacts. Supervisors also noted limitations: zoning and permitting are local tools but federal actions and cooperative agreements (for example, involving federal property or military installations) could introduce constraints the county cannot unilaterally override.
Next steps: The chair asked staff to continue monitoring credible leads and to post verified information on official county channels. Several supervisors volunteered to coordinate existing legislative and lobbying channels described elsewhere on the agenda (see the General Assembly update) so the county’s delegation understands Stafford’s concerns.
Tone and context: The board accepted public comment and recorded a mix of appeals—some urging legal or legislative action, others urging administrative steps such as public notice and property-owner outreach. No formal ordinance or emergency local ban was adopted at the Feb. 3 meeting; residents said they wanted a clear public plan for rapid, transparent response if a federal proposal advances.
