Residents urge Crow Wing County Board to review 287(g) and intergovernmental agreements with ICE

Dozens of residents used the county's open-forum period to call on the Crow Wing County Board to review its 287(g) agreement and related intergovernmental support (IGS) arrangements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"As of April of this year, over 70% of ICE detainees have no criminal record," said Caitlyn Dyoff, who told the board she compiled data from peer-reviewed studies and Freedom of Information Act requests. She urged the board to place the 287(g) and IGS amendments on a future agenda.

The requests came during a sustained public-comment block in which speakers described local and national enforcement practices they said were harmful. Cynthia Grimman recounted an ICE round-up of roofing crews in her community in which, she said, workers who told agents "we have papers" were still taken. Jane Hullrich accused county leaders of enabling a policy she described as using detention as a business model and said, quoting a reported interview, that the sheriff had said the jail "works best when it's full." Mary Papislad read a list of alleged abuses in detention facilities and called 287(g)-style cooperation "inhumane." Gary Payne, speaking from a law-enforcement perspective, urged separation from ICE, while Doug Kern told the board he supported law-enforcement cooperation and enforcement of immigration laws.

Why it matters: Several speakers tied the agreements to county budget and public-safety trade-offs. Jane Hullrich specifically asked for transparency about county spending on ICE-related activities, including staff hours and liability costs. Other commenters warned cooperation could erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, reducing reporting of crimes.

What the board did: The public-comment period ended with no board motion to place the 287(g) or IGS items on a future agenda recorded in the meeting minutes. The board proceeded to routine business and approved the consent agenda and other items.

Context and next steps: Speakers framed their appeals as requests for formal discussion and review; none of the speakers reported that the board had committed to scheduling the requested agenda items during the meeting. The meeting record shows no vote or direction to staff to add the agreements to an upcoming agenda.