Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Steuben County to end 287(g) agreements with ICE
Summary
Multiple speakers at the Feb. 23 Steuben County Legislature meeting urged lawmakers to terminate two 287(g)-style agreements between the county sheriff’s office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, citing alleged civil-rights harms, local liability and community trust concerns.
Several residents used the public-comment period at the Feb. 23 Steuben County Legislature meeting to urge lawmakers to terminate two 287(g)-style agreements between the Steuben County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"If ICE can shoot an unarmed prone man in the back with impunity...then no one is safe," Wayne Wells said, describing what he called "gestapo-like tactics" and urging the legislature to act. Barbara Burdick and Bill Mattingly also urged termination, citing concerns about due process and county liability. Mattingly referenced guidance from the New York State attorney general’s office and said, "I urge you to follow their legal advice and terminate both 287(g) agreements as soon as possible." (Bill Mattingly)
Speakers warned that MOAs can erode community trust in local law enforcement. Linda Childs said the agreements could make local deputies "part-time ICE agents while still drawing their full salaries from our Steuben County taxes," and warned that local governments can face legal exposure if ICE detainers are later found to lack probable cause. Dr. Thomas Chapman highlighted the potential financial and operational burdens, noting that some jurisdictions terminated similar agreements after finding them costly.
The public comments referenced both humanitarian concerns and practical liabilities. Joan Rosen read excerpts from letters by detainees to illustrate human impacts, and multiple speakers asked the legislature to rescind at least the 2025 agreement. Chair Fitzpatrick and county staff said the legislature would consider the public input; no formal vote on terminating the MOAs occurred at the meeting.
Next steps: The public comments were recorded as part of the open meeting record. Legislators discussed awaiting any state-level changes (including a governor’s proposal mentioned later in the meeting) before determining whether to act; no county policy change was adopted at the Feb. 23 session.
