Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sheriff defends 287(g) task‑force deal as residents demand details on local immigration enforcement role

Columbus, Georgia City Council · July 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After residents warned that a 287(g) task‑force agreement could lead to racial profiling and detentions, Sheriff Greg Countryman told council the county joined the model to improve intelligence on cartel activity and said the program is focused on jail‑based intelligence, not street sweeps.

Residents and advocacy groups used public comment at the July 28 council meeting to press for transparency and limits on a memorandum of agreement the Muscogee County Sheriff's Office signed under the 287(g) program. Speakers described past civil‑rights concerns tied to earlier task‑force models and said compressed online training risks mistakes that could lead to unfair detentions.

Sheriff Greg Countryman addressed the council and the public, saying the county entered the task‑force model to gather federal intelligence to combat cartel activity and large‑scale drug trafficking, not to expand routine immigration stops. "The 2 8 7 g program in which we entered into is not what you just heard," he said, adding that the agreement is primarily an intelligence model intended to help investigators identify the most dangerous individuals.

Countryman said eight employees signed up for the program—five in management and three in investigations—and stressed quarterly reporting on detainee demographics is already posted on the sheriff's office website. He outlined prior drug and weapons seizures to explain why federal partnerships matter to local public safety and invited improved communication with immigrant communities. Some council members and residents pressed him for copies of the agreement, more public briefings and clear descriptions of what local officers may do differently under the MOA.

The council did not adopt new local policy at the meeting but several members said they would follow up and seek further details. Community members asked for plain‑language disclosures, a public meeting with the sheriff's office, and written limits on local enforcement action if the sheriff's office seeks to expand activities beyond jail‑based intelligence gathering.