Residents urge Sullivan County to reconsider 287(g) agreement with ICE

Public commenters urged the Sullivan County Commission on March 26 to reconsider the county’s recent 287(g)-style agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying the arrangement exposes the county to fiscal and civil‑liberties risks and harms community trust.

Bennett Cowan, a Bristol resident, told the commission the county is taking on potential liabilities by partnering with ICE. “Litigation is the real money maker,” Cowan said, arguing detention and litigation costs often fall on local governments and taxpayers. He cited national research groups (as his sources) and described detention operating costs as “front loaded” and potentially expensive to local governments.

Jenna Wingo, a member of the Tri City Solidarity Project, asked the commission to meet with her organization and review the resolutions the board previously approved. “Sullivan County officers can now serve ICE administrative warrants on people detained for simple traffic violations, and then those detainees are brought to our jail at our expense,” Wingo said. She also said deputies could transport detainees to ICE‑approved facilities at county expense and question people about immigration status in public.

Speakers framed the concerns as both fiscal and moral: Cowan warned of potential multimillion‑dollar detention and litigation expenses, while Wingo said the agreements risk racial profiling and erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Neither commentator provided evidence the county has yet faced those expenses; they urged the commission to weigh national studies and local impacts before proceeding with ICE‑related operations.

The commission did not take formal action on the public comments during the meeting. Commenters asked for future meetings with commissioners and for the county to review the contractual and fiscal implications of cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.