Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charles Town council adopts resolution limiting local participation in federal immigration enforcement, 8–1
Summary
The Charles Town City Council on Feb. 2 adopted a resolution stating the city will not detain, arrest or transfer people based solely on real or perceived immigration status and will decline participation in 287(g) partnerships; the vote passed 8–1 after edits and debate over constitutional language and police sign-on.
The Charles Town City Council on Feb. 2 voted 8–1 to adopt a Public Safety Practices Resolution that states the city will not detain, arrest or transfer individuals based solely on real or perceived immigration status and will decline participation in 287(g) partnerships under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The resolution, presented with edits during the meeting, also directs the city to list local and regional immigration-assistance resources on the city website, naming Mountain State Justice, Catholic Charities of West Virginia, the West Virginia University College of Law immigration clinic and the ACLU as examples. Councilmember (5) moved to adopt the resolution and Councilmember (3) seconded; the voice vote produced an 8–1 tally in favor.
Why it matters: Council members said the measure clarifies municipal limits on immigration enforcement and provides resources for residents seeking legal help. Supporters framed it as balancing community safety with civil-rights protections; some members worried particular wording could stray into offering legal advice.
Council debate focused on two edits. One broadened references that had named a single agency to instead refer to "other law enforcement agencies in Jefferson County" so the resolution would reflect agreements across multiple county agencies. Another change moved language—originally drafted as administrative guidance—into the body of the resolution so the assistance resources would be explicitly listed.
Not all council members supported every line. Councilmember (11) raised concern about a clause that cited the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, saying it risked the body endorsing a legal interpretation rather than stating neutral policy: "That one line ... puts us back into this territory," the councilmember said. Councilmember (3) responded that current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as they read it, treats those due-process protections as applying to all people regardless of immigration status.
The police chief said the department would follow applicable law and training regardless of the resolution and indicated the department would likely decline to co-sign the document, describing official practice this way: "We are going to follow what the laws of West Virginia ... and the constitution ... and we're going to follow that." The chief also noted changes in state legislation might affect enforcement practice.
Next steps: Council members said they would finalize formatting and remove the draft stamp; the mayor indicated he typically signs such documents midweek and the council planned to add names for those who wanted to sign the final version. The adopted resolution will be posted and implemented according to city process; the transcript records the outcome but does not include a roll-call list of how each member voted.
