Resident urges Holmes County to refuse 287(g) cooperation; local law enforcement defends policy
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a Holmes County commission meeting, a resident urged commissioners to end or refuse funding for a 287(g) agreement with ICE, citing alleged civil‑rights harms; a county law enforcement official responded that the sheriff's office notifies federal partners only after criminal arrests and said cooperating agencies aim to protect public safety.
A Holmes County resident identified in the transcript as Kelly urged the county commission to end or refuse to fund a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying the program turns local deputies into federal agents and risks civil‑rights violations.
"If federal agency can't force our law enforcement to participate in the programs ... then why is it happening?" Kelly asked, arguing the state has limited local options because of recent legislation (referenced in comments as "SB 1808") and saying the federal program subjects immigrants to detention without oversight. Kelly also cited national figures and court actions and asked whether the county would refuse to fund or otherwise resist participation.
John, speaking for local law enforcement, replied that the Holmes County Sheriff's Office cooperates with federal partners as it does with U.S. Marshals, ATF and DEA and that such cooperation is about public safety. He said the sheriff's office does not "go out there knocking on everybody's door" and that recent arrests of people here unlawfully have arisen from criminal violations — probation violations, driving with no license and drug offenses — and that ICE notifications follow criminal processing.
"Protect citizens of Holmes County, and that is what we will do," John said, adding the county has incurred minimal costs so far and that reimbursement mechanisms exist for housing individuals pending federal disposition.
The exchange was a public‑comment item rather than an agenda action; no formal vote on the 287(g) agreement took place at the meeting. Commissioners listened and asked that staff and the sheriff continue to communicate about legal constraints and fiscal impacts before any policy decision.
Context: The public commenter framed the issue as both a civil‑rights and humanitarian concern and asked the county to refuse to fund or otherwise participate in federal enforcement actions it viewed as unlawful. Law enforcement characterized the cooperation as standard interagency public‑safety practice and defended notifying federal partners after criminal arrests. The transcript records disputed claims (public commenter) and a rebuttal by sheriff's office leadership; the county did not adopt or rescind a written agreement at this session.
Next steps: Commissioners did not vote on the 287(g) participation at this meeting and indicated they would rely on further briefings, legal review and clarifications about state and federal requirements before taking formal action.