Resident urges Kenosha County to seek oversight and cost reports on sheriff's 287(g) ICE agreement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a Kenosha County committee meeting, resident Jim Kennedy urged the board to narrow and report on a 287(g) jail-enforcement agreement with ICE and requested a list of offenses the sheriff considers "violent," regular public reports on detainers and transfers, and detailed county cost accounting for ICE-related detention days.
Jim Kennedy, a Kenosha resident, urged the county committee to press for greater transparency and fiscal reporting on a jail-enforcement 287(g) agreement the Kenosha County sheriff signed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"This jail enforcement model agreement obligates Kenosha County to help ICE carry out aspects of their immigrant roundup agenda," Kennedy told the committee, arguing the agreement deputizes selected county employees to operate under ICE supervision and could expand transfers to ICE custody beyond the "violent offenders" the sheriff has described.
Kennedy said national detention statistics show only a small share of people in ICE custody have violent-crime records and that broad transfers risk sweeping more people into federal deportation: "Recent information published by credible research organizations such as the conservative Cato Institute consistently show that only around 5% of immigrants being held in ICE detention ... have any record of violent crime," he said, urging more narrowly defined county policies.
Kennedy offered three specific recommendations for the board: require the sheriff to provide a list of offenses his office treats as "violent" and limit transfers to that list; demand regular open-session reports from the sheriff's department on detainer requests honored or not and the number and characteristics of inmates transferred to ICE custody; and require financial reports showing added detention days and county personnel costs resulting from ICE detainers.
Chair Belsky responded with a procedural clarification about the committee's authority: "Under Wisconsin law, the sheriff is a constitutional officer," Belsky said, adding that operational law enforcement decisions, including entering federal agreements under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), fall within the sheriff's independent authority. Belsky said the agreement is structured as a jail-enforcement model limited to individuals already lawfully in custody and does not authorize street-level immigration enforcement by county deputies.
Belsky also noted areas where the committee retains oversight authority: budget review, requesting informational updates in open session, and providing a public forum so citizens' concerns enter the public record. He urged the committee to use those tools to monitor fiscal impacts and transparency around the agreement.
The citizen-comment period closed after Kennedy's statement; no formal action to alter the sheriff's agreement was recorded at the meeting.
Next steps: Committee members did not vote on Kennedy's recommendations during the session; Chair Belsky emphasized the committee can request reports and budget information in public session if members choose to pursue those options.