Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287g Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunbury council delays decision on proposed ICE 287(g) task force after extended public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment for and against a proposed ICE 287(g) task-force agreement, Sunbury City Council voted to table the matter and seek additional information on liability, funding and operating procedures.
Sunbury City Council on Monday postponed a decision on whether the city will enter a 287(g) task-force agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after extended public comment that ranged from warnings about civil-rights risks to arguments that cooperation would improve public safety.
The council opened public comment on the agreement and heard residents who urged caution and others who supported cooperation. Betty Stephenson, who described arriving in the United States as a German immigrant and becoming a U.S. citizen, said, “Don’t let it happen here,” invoking historical abuses she said resembled possible outcomes of expanded immigration enforcement. Resident Drew Banner warned councilors that “you’re also taking on that personal civil and criminal liability as well,” citing changes to training standards and local lawsuits tied to similar programs.
Supporters argued the agreement could provide additional resources to local police. Mike Filos, who identified himself as a Sunbury resident and business owner, said local officers already interact with ICE and that cooperative arrangements can “make us all safer.” Jordy Comins, speaking as a member of the Fraternal Order of Police, encouraged careful policy review and offered state-policy materials for council consideration.
The council’s police chief reported city statistics for May 2026 and said the department tracked ICE interactions whether or not Sunbury participates in 287(g); he reported zero ICE incidents in the most recent month. Public commenters cited federal inspector-general and Government Accountability Office findings, and several named local and out-of-state settlements and first-year cost figures as reasons to proceed cautiously.
Councilmember Andrew moved to table further action pending additional information about liability, funding and operating procedures; the motion was seconded and carried. The transcript records at least one recorded dissent and multiple affirmative votes; the item was formally tabled to the council’s next meeting for additional review.
Why it matters: A decision to participate in 287(g) programs typically shifts immigration enforcement authority closer to local agencies and can expose municipalities to operational costs and civil-liability risks, according to speakers who addressed the council. Supporters said cooperation can improve coordination and officer safety.
What’s next: Councilors said they would schedule further discussion in a future work session and gather more detailed information about training requirements, expected reimbursements and legal exposure before taking a final vote.
