Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration 287g topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Kenton County to end 287(g) cooperation with ICE
Summary
Multiple Kenton County residents urged the Fiscal Court to end the county’s 287(g) agreement, citing concerns about militarized enforcement, family separation, and local resource priorities. Speakers urged the county to keep police focused on local public safety and rehabilitation programs.
Several residents used the court’s public-comment period to press the Fiscal Court to end Kenton County’s participation in 287(g) agreements that deputize local officers to enforce federal immigration law.
Mohamed Amed said the county should “reconsider the 287(g) agreement” and warned against importing militarized enforcement tactics he described in incidents in Minneapolis. “We the people do not want to live in a culture or community of violence, fear and militarization,” he said. Chris Coleman and Kerry Stephens echoed that call: Coleman said local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement risks exporting violent practices, and Stephens urged that county time and tax dollars be spent on local rehabilitation programs such as Brighton Center and the ION Center rather than federal immigration enforcement.
Michael Staverman urged the court to publicly state its position on 287(g) so residents know where elected leaders stand. Leo Thamann told the court that the agreement is “not serving the people” and warned that support for local-ICE cooperation could affect officials’ re-election prospects. Kayla Reed, speaking for immigrants she said are afraid to speak publicly, cited ICE data she described as showing about 74% of people detained this year had no criminal record; she framed that figure and other examples as reasons Kenton County should “pull back entirely from 287(g).”
The speakers’ remarks were delivered during the citizens-address portion of the court’s agenda and were presented as appeals to the Fiscal Court; no motion or formal action on 287(g) was taken during the meeting.
