Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Doj Grants Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Paso County weighs DOJ immigration‑related grant but pauses to study legal and policy implications
Summary
County staff briefed commissioners on a DOJ 'Bridging Immigration Related Deficits' funding opportunity that could support detention, transport and enforcement‑adjacent costs. Commissioners expressed concern the grant could require expanded immigration enforcement; the court asked staff to return with legal analysis and cost options and took no final action.
County officials presented a Department of Justice notice of funding opportunity July 13 that would provide funds for activities tied to locating, apprehending, investigating and prosecuting noncitizens who commit crimes, as well as transportation and temporary detention capacity. The court discussed potential uses and risks but took no immediate action.
“Applicants must fully participate or commit to participating in the Homeland Security Task Force and other components,” Carmen Arita Candelaria of the Budget and Finance Department said, citing eligibility and program objectives. Staff noted the program’s allowable uses include hiring, technology, and construction or expansion of detention facilities.
Commissioners and legal staff raised questions about whether applying would commit the county to expanded immigration enforcement or require certifications affecting local practices. Ruben Alvarez, assistant county attorney, said he had not reviewed an application but cautioned that certain certification language could obligate information-sharing with federal immigration authorities. “One of the elements of that certification is that they carefully have reviewed and have received legal advice,” Alvarez said, and staff must analyze the specific notice language before committing.
Sergeant Sanchez Lopez of the Sheriff’s Office told the court the sheriff’s view is that the office “doesn't enforce immigration. We don't. We're not going to. We’re going to focus on state criminal acts.” He added that the sheriff’s office sees the grant primarily as a way to support jail operations and costs related to criminal matters that result in incarceration, rather than to expand proactive immigration enforcement.
Several commissioners asked whether the county would use the funds to offset costs resulting from state enforcement actions (for example transport and housing of individuals taken into custody by other state agencies) or to expand the county’s own enforcement and detention capacity. Commissioner O'Guin said using funds to reimburse housing or transport costs would be different from seeking money to build new capacity that could encourage additional enforcement activity.
Given the complex legal and policy tradeoffs, limited staff recommended pausing on the first application deadline and returning to the court with a more detailed options analysis before deciding whether to apply in a subsequent round. The court agreed: there was no motion to apply at this meeting; staff were asked to analyze legal obligations, funding amounts for different options (operational reimbursements versus construction) and to return with recommendations and cost estimates for the next deadlines.
What’s next: County staff will study the notice’s certification requirements, potential legal obligations (including information‑sharing), and cost scenarios and report back to the court for a future funding‑decision vote.
