Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Kenosha County oversight of sheriff's 287(g) agreement; chair says board lacks authority to rescind
Summary
At a county committee meeting, Jim Kennedy urged the board to restrict county cooperation with ICE under a 287(g) jail-enforcement agreement and requested specific reporting and financial disclosures. The committee chair said the sheriff's federal agreement falls under the sheriff's independent authority but noted the board retains budget and transparency oversight.
Jim Kennedy, a Kenosha County resident, told the committee that the sheriff's recent 287(g) jail-enforcement agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) effectively deputizes selected county employees to act under ICE supervision and urged the committee to seek limits and public reporting.
"This jail enforcement model agreement obligates Kenosha County to help ICE carry out aspects of their immigrant roundup agenda," Kennedy said, and he argued the agreement could pressure county personnel to transfer local immigrant detainees into ICE custody beyond the narrow set of cases the sheriff described. Kennedy cited research he said were from the Cato Institute about the share of detainees with violent-crime histories and proposed three steps: (1) ask the sheriff for a list defining which offenses he treats as violent, (2) require regular open-session reports from the sheriff about detainer requests honored and inmate transfers to ICE, and (3) require financial reports showing detention days and staff costs associated with honoring ICE detainer requests.
The committee's chair responded with a legal and procedural explanation. The chair said that under state law the sheriff is a constitutional officer whose operational law-enforcement decisions'including entering federal agreements of the kind cited'are within the sheriff's independent authority and do not require county-board approval. "This agreement is executed between ICE and the sheriff's office," the chair said, adding that the county board does not have operational control to rescind or amend the agreement.
The chair described limits in the local role: the agreement is a jail-enforcement model constrained to the jail setting and, the chair said, does not authorize street-level immigration enforcement by county deputies. The chair also acknowledged fiscal implications: the agreement states that personnel salaries and related costs remain the county's responsibility and that the board retains budget-review authority and the ability to request informational updates in open session.
No formal action was taken at the meeting to alter the agreement. The chair repeated that, while the board cannot rescind the federal agreement, the committee retains three tools: budget oversight, requests for transparency and informational reports in open session, and providing the public forum that places citizen comments in the record. Kennedy's requested items (an offenses list, regular public reporting on detainers/transfers, and financial accounting of detention days and county staff costs) therefore emerged as possible avenues for oversight short of attempting to rescind the sheriff's agreement.
The committee did not vote on any change to the sheriff's agreement at the meeting; the chair closed public comment and moved the agenda on to other items.
