Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Steuben County Legislature to rescind 287(g) and Marshals agreements
Summary
More than a dozen residents used the public‑comment period to demand the legislature rescind county agreements that authorize the sheriff's office to cooperate with ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, citing civil‑rights, liability and public‑safety concerns.
Dozens of residents urged the Steuben County Legislature on March 23 to rescind 287(g) immigration enforcement agreements and an intergovernmental agreement to house U.S. Marshals or ICE detainees.
"I'm here this morning to express my opposition to the 287(g) agreement and the intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service that allows the county jail to house ICE detainees," a resident who was listed for comment as Cheryl Johnson said during the meeting's public‑comment period. She told legislators the county has a low percentage of foreign‑born residents and raised concerns that local officers would be deputized to perform immigration enforcement.
Several speakers cited national reporting and local minutes to argue the county is not currently seeing substantial immigration arrests and questioned whether the county needs those agreements. "According to the public‑safety and corrections committee minutes, the last time we housed an ICE inmate was 2015," one commenter said, urging caution about expanding detention capacity.
Bill Mattingly, who said he lives in Erwin, told the legislature he reviewed contract language and concluded some clauses — which require compliance with federal court orders and executive orders — could bind the county to accept administrative detainees. "Being beholden to executive orders is not where we want to be," Mattingly said, and he urged termination of the Marshals and 287(g) agreements.
Other commenters emphasized civil‑rights or moral arguments. "We must refuse to cooperate and even work intentionally to hinder their efforts," Jessica O'Connor of Corning said, urging rescission of the agreements. Dr. Tom Chapman, a Painted Post resident, cited national incidents and civil‑liberties concerns and asked the legislature to end both 287(g) agreements with the sheriff's office.
County leaders did not take a formal vote on those agreements during the session; the item drew extensive public attention and requests that the legislature place a review or rescission on a future agenda.
