Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Kenton County Fiscal Court to end 287(g) agreement with ICE
Summary
Multiple residents told the Kenton County Fiscal Court they want the county to end its 287(g) and related intergovernmental agreements with ICE, citing recent high-profile uses of force and concerns about militarization and family separation.
At the Jan. 13 Kenton County Fiscal Court meeting, several residents asked the court to end the county’s 287(g) immigration-enforcement agreements and to investigate conditions at the county detention center. "Please end the 287G agreements today," Michael Staverman told the court, saying only about "two percent of ICE detainees in Northern Kentucky facilities were violent offenders" and urging an investigation of Jailer Marc Fields.
Other speakers framed the issue as a risk to community safety and family stability. Ashlyn Green described watching video of force used in Minneapolis and said she feared for relatives in other cities; she closed by quoting Ernest Hemingway. Mohammed Ahmed, who identified himself as a Covington resident and Palestinian American, said the agreements represent "militarization" and urged the court to "do the right thing for all of us, not just a select few." Virginia Southgate, a longtime Covington resident, said she opposes the partnership because she sees partners as "undertrained and over armed." A resident who identified himself as RJ said ICE activity would make him "less comfortable" calling police.
The court did not take action on the 287(g) or intergovernmental service agreement during the meeting. Multiple speakers asked the court to add the item to a future agenda or investigate detention-center operations; that request stood as public comment with no formal staff report or vote recorded. The comments were made during the public-comment portion of the meeting and no county official offered a formal response or announced a follow-up at the time.
Next steps: The Fiscal Court did not schedule a vote or direct staff to investigate on the record; residents requested the matter be added to an upcoming agenda.
