Beaufort County sheriff says MOU expected this week as office prepares to rejoin 287(g) task‑force; residents voice profiling and cost concerns

The Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office said it expects a memorandum of understanding with federal immigration partners “sometime this week” and plans to designate one or two deputies with secondary duties to a 287(g) task force, the sheriff told an educational public meeting attended by county residents and council members.

The sheriff framed the move as a public‑safety tool and said 287(g) membership would give local law enforcement “a seat at the table” so the county can get advance notice and provide local input when federal immigration operations occur in Beaufort County. Daniel Gourley, the sheriff’s staff attorney, told attendees the county cannot lawfully obstruct federal operations and that participation in 287(g) provides coordination benefits and access to immigration data beyond what is available through NCIC.

Why it matters: the meeting focused on whether the operational and informational gains the sheriff described outweigh potential harms residents fear — including racial profiling, economic disruption and reduced willingness by immigrants to report crimes. Attendees asked about cost, legal limits, alternatives for data access, and protections for victims who cooperate with law enforcement.

What the sheriff said: the sheriff said the county has previously participated in related programs and has long used jail notifications for immigration holds. He said the task‑force model would be secondary duty for officers, that training and equipment are provided by the federal partner, and that the county would not send federal funds to ICE. On staffing he gave an estimate that the secondary cost of a deputy (salary, uniform, vehicle) would be “right around $135,000” but said the officer would continue primary duties and the county would not hire full‑time new positions for 287(g).

Legal limits and alternatives: Daniel Gourley, the sheriff’s general counsel, emphasized constitutional limits on local obstruction of federal operations and the benefit, in his view, of local participation: “If we don’t have a seat at the table, we’re not going to be aware of what ICE is coming down to do in Beaufort County.” Several attorneys in the audience said other federal services — notably the Department of Homeland Security’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) — can provide near‑real‑time checks on IDENT/EAGLE data without a 287(g) agreement; immigration attorney Sebastian Hernandez said agencies can and do use LESC and argued that 287(g) is not the only route to the information the sheriff described.

Concerns from residents and advocates: speakers raised several recurring objections. Rita Conrad asked why county taxpayers should fund any new immigration enforcement costs, saying “another red cent is unnecessary.” Multiple attendees asked what safeguards the sheriff will impose to prevent racial profiling; the sheriff responded that racial profiling is prohibited by department policy and that officers who violate policy would not remain employed by the sheriff’s office. A resident and local attorney asked for outcome data: one attendee cited county NIBRS figures and noted group‑A offenses fell from 9,646 in 2010 to 5,416 in 2024 and asked whether that trend undermines the need for 287(g). The sheriff said he did not have the jail‑side numbers on hand but offered to provide data to the media later.

Victim‑protection and reporting: the meeting included a discussion of U‑visa certifications for crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement. The sheriff described the office’s role in certifying U‑visa applications, and an immigration attorney in the audience said applicants often wait many years for final adjudication — she reported current waits “somewhere between 10 to 15 years” while noting certified applicants may receive a temporary three‑year protection during adjudication, a source of concern for survivors deciding whether to report crimes.

Next steps: the sheriff said the MOU will be reviewed by his general counsel when it arrives and that the county can end participation with 30 days’ notice. No formal vote or council action was recorded at the meeting; the session was presented as an educational forum and concluded after a period of public questions and answers.

What was not decided or specified: the meeting did not record a formal vote, did not publish the text of the MOU at the time of the meeting, and did not provide full, county‑level jail cost or demographic breakdowns during the session. Several attendees asked for more transparent data on arrests, race and immigration status so residents could better assess the program’s impact.

The Sheriff’s Office said it will circulate the MOU once available and the sheriff and counsel offered to provide follow‑up data to the media.