Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges limits and regular reporting on Kenosha County's 287(g) agreement with ICE
Summary
At the March 4 Judiciary & Law Enforcement Committee meeting, Jim Kennedy pressed the county to narrow its 287(g) agreement and require public reporting on detainers, transfers to ICE custody, supervised activities, and costs; Chair Laura Belsky responded that the Sheriff has independent authority and the agreement is executed with ICE.
Jim Kennedy, a resident who identified his address during the public-comment period, urged the Judiciary & Law Enforcement Committee to require strict limits and regular public reporting for the county's 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Kennedy told the committee he was concerned that the agreement "deputizes select county employees to operate under ICE authority within detention facilities at the county's expense and under ICE supervision," and said research he cited suggests only a small share of people in ICE custody have violent records. He urged the committee to require the Sheriff to define what qualifies as a "violent criminal offense," limit the agreement to that set of offenses, and publish regular reports on detainer requests, transfers to ICE custody, activities conducted under ICE supervision, and the financial impact of the agreement, including detention and personnel costs.
Chair Laura Belsky responded during the same portion of the meeting, explaining that under Wisconsin law the Sheriff is a constitutional officer with independent operational authority and that the 287(g) agreement is executed between ICE and the Sheriff's Office. Belsky said, as described to the committee, the agreement applies only inside the county jail to people already in custody, does not authorize street-level immigration enforcement, and requires participating personnel to be trained and supervised by ICE. She also explained that while the county bears certain personnel and related costs, fiscal oversight rests with the County Board and that the Board cannot unilaterally amend or rescind an agreement executed by the Sheriff.
No formal motion or vote on changes to the agreement was recorded at the meeting. The committee kept the discussion at an informational level; Chair Belsky said the committee's role is focused on budget oversight and transparency rather than operational direction of the Sheriff's Office.
