Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Nevada County supervisors to adopt policy limiting cooperation with ICE
Summary
More than a dozen residents pressed the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to agendize and adopt a resolution stating the county will not participate in civil immigration enforcement, citing fear in immigrant communities and a petition with over 1,000 signatures.
At the Board of Supervisors’ Feb. 10 meeting, residents urged the board to adopt a clear local policy limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and to agendize a draft resolution that organizers say has already gathered more than 1,000 signatures.
Lee French, a Sierra District 2 resident, said a supervisor had publicly supported student demonstrations and accused that official of using their position for political gain. Lolo Stone, who told the board organizers had gathered “over 1,000 signatures,” asked the supervisors to "affirm that Nevada County will follow California law, will not participate in civil immigration enforcement, and will not honor ICE detainers or administrative warrants." Stone asked that the petition be converted into a resolution with “concrete guardrails” for staff.
Several speakers gave personal accounts or cited national reporting to argue the county’s posture affects local safety and service delivery. Kim Stirla (District 4) told supervisors that "public safety depends on trust" and warned that fear of enforcement can make residents less likely to report crimes or seek services. A speaker identified during public comment said the sheriff’s office reported eight ICE requests during a reporting period and that the county complied with two requests; that speaker asked the board to explain where those individuals were transferred.
Other commentators described recent enforcement actions they called violent or unlawful. Noga Wazanski and other speakers urged the board to take proactive measures such as requiring warrants for searches and preventing local officers from assisting ICE without court orders. Supporters framed the request as a public-safety measure intended to keep residents engaged with law enforcement, schools, health care and other county services.
County officials did not vote on a resolution during the meeting. Chair Swarthout closed the public-comment period and told speakers the board was listening; several supervisors thanked speakers for their time. Organizers said they will continue to deliver petition signatures and materials and asked the board to develop a resolution for a future agenda.
What’s next: Speakers asked the board to draft and agendize a resolution specifying county limits on cooperation with ICE, including a pledge not to honor detainers and not to deputize local law enforcement under 287(g)-style agreements. The board did not adopt such a resolution at the Feb. 10 session.
