Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Ashland County for written limits on cooperation with ICE; board says sheriff is independent but will consider protocols
Summary
During a long public session, residents and tribal members urged the Ashland County Board to adopt written policies limiting county cooperation with ICE and prohibiting use of county facilities for immigration enforcement without judicial warrants; board members responded that the sheriff is a constitutional officer but that policy, training and budget levers can be used to clarify local practice.
Dozens of residents and tribal members addressed the Ashland County Board on Feb. 24 to urge explicit written policies limiting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Speakers asked supervisors to adopt measures including prohibiting the county jail from being used to detain people for ICE without judicial warrants, refusing to enter 287(g) agreements, declining to share resident information with federal agents, and denying use of county facilities for immigration staging unless a judicial warrant is presented.
Bailey Croll, a resident who identified herself during the public session, asked the board to prohibit the sheriff’s office from renting jail space to ICE and to refuse 287(g) participation. “Prohibit Ashland County from participating in the 287G program,” she said, adding that administrative warrants should not be treated the same as judicial warrants. Multiple speakers, including Shay Shakamayer and Ellie Prister, recounted trauma in tribal communities and urged the board to protect residents from profiling.
County staff and board members responded that the sheriff is a separately elected constitutional officer and that the county board cannot unilaterally command how the sheriff conducts law enforcement. Chief Deputy Dawson and county officials emphasized that the sheriff’s office has not signed a 287(g) agreement and that deputies will comply with judicial warrants. At the same time, supervisors and the administrator said the board can provide written policies, designate who may interact with federal agents, set physical boundaries for non-public areas, and use budgetary authority to influence implementation.
Several residents urged concrete steps: adopt clear written protocols for handling federal requests, limit information collection to reduce records that could be requested by ICE, and designate specific officials authorized to interact with federal agents. The board agreed to collect comment forms and said it will consider next steps, including drafting policies or guidance and discussing whether to publish written statements outlining the county’s stance and procedures.
What happens next: the county administrator and sheriff’s office were asked to evaluate options for written protocols; residents asked the board to publicly record any formal positions and to explore non-binding policy statements clarifying the county’s handling of federal immigration requests.
Quotes from the session appear in the public record and the board indicated it will review possible policy language and reporting steps at future meetings.
