Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinal County meeting dominated by public outcry over ICE 287(g) agreement and county attorney actions
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Board of Supervisors to rescind the county’s 287(g)-style agreement and praised the board’s recent civil action against County Attorney Brad Miller; public commenters described business harm, personal fear and possible legal liability for the county.
Pinal County residents used the board’s call to the public to press supervisors for clarity and action over the county’s recent immigration-enforcement arrangements and the conduct of County Attorney Brad Miller.
Alyssa Russell, a local business owner, told the board the so-called 287(g) program is harming her practice because many clients—she said about 50%—are Latino and now avoid appointments out of fear. Russell said the agreement was implemented “without the consent of the board” and asked for a written status update and an immediate end to the program.
Several other speakers echoed Russell’s concerns and framed the issue as both a public-safety and civil-rights matter. Clarissa Vella of the People First Project said she reviewed a Snell & Wilmer memorandum and alleged Brad Miller’s actions were illegal; she urged the board to pursue disbarment and said Pinal County taxpayers could be liable for costs connected to the attorney’s conduct. Noel Rek, who identified himself from Eloy, called on the board to halt county collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, citing detainer practices and data-sharing as risks to detainees.
Supporters of law enforcement also spoke. Lianne Mendoza, a Florence resident, thanked supervisors for backing law enforcement cooperation with federal agents, recounted a personal crime experience, and said victims deserve strong enforcement. Several commenters described the debate as highly emotional and said they have experienced threats or online harassment tied to their positions.
Board members did not take new formal action during the public-comment period. Earlier in the meeting the board moved, at a prior session, to file civil action related to the county attorney’s announced cooperation; multiple speakers referenced that board step as a reason to withhold county participation with DHS and ICE. Supervisors repeatedly encouraged residents to contact their state legislators about bills mentioned in the legislative update.
The record shows sustained public interest in immigration enforcement policy and in the county attorney’s conduct; speakers asked the board for: a written update on the 287(g)-style agreement, clear limits on county collaboration with federal immigration agents, and clarification about potential fiscal liabilities tied to related legal work. The board has not announced additional votes on the matter at this meeting.
