Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration 287g topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Crow Wing County to address sheriff’s 287(g) agreement with ICE
Summary
Mary Pappasladd and another commenter told the Crow Wing County board the sheriff’s 287(g) agreement with ICE was signed without board approval, will harm due‑process rights, separate families and erode trust in local law enforcement, and could saddle counties with unreimbursed costs; speakers pointed to litigation in other counties.
Mary Pappasladd, a Brainerd resident, told the Crow Wing County board during open forum that people "on both sides of the island in Crow Wing County do not agree with the sheriff signing a...agreement with ICE," saying the arrangement denies due process, separates families and causes "long‑term trauma." She said the board was not consulted before the sheriff signed the agreement and noted that other counties have seen litigation over similar pacts.
Pappasladd said the agreements reduce public trust in law enforcement, can discourage victims and witnesses from reporting crimes, and impose unrecouped costs on counties that must house and feed people until ICE takes custody. "Counties may have had to hire additional personnel to handle the administrative duties," she said, and "what is liability for taxpayers when civil rights have been violated?" she asked.
Another speaker later in the open forum argued emotionally against the county aligning with what the commenter called "masked enforcers," citing recent violent crimes alleged to have been committed by people in the country without authorization to support the argument for stricter local enforcement.
The board did not take formal action on the 287(g) topic during the meeting. The chair moved through the agenda after public comments; the transcript records no vote or directive instructing staff to investigate or rescind any agreement.
The public comments put the agreement on the county’s record and raise questions for the board to address at a future meeting if it chooses to discuss the sheriff’s authority and any county involvement in immigration‑enforcement arrangements.
