SLC Dems Respond to SLC Board of Legislators on Potential ICE Agreement

The recent resolution brought forward by Legislator Rita Curran and the decision on Monday, January 12, by the St. Lawrence County Board of Legislators to enter into a 487(g) agreement with ICE is an example of politics at its absolute worst. Just five days earlier, on January 7, Renee Good was fatally shot by an ICE officer. Less than a week after her death, and as investigations by state and federal agencies continue, our board of legislators decided that now is the time to partner with the very agency embroiled in controversy. Minneapolis now has more ICE officers deployed in the city than it has Minneapolis police officers. This action by the Board of Legislators and its blatant political purpose is truly disturbing.

As is the Board’s modus operandi, the resolution—with very little documentation or detail—was introduced at a committee meeting where public comment was neither sought nor allowed. Instead, the leadership can throw red meat to the MAGA base and further divide St. Lawrence County residents. There will no doubt be a perfunctory public comment portion at the upcoming February 2 meeting, but rigorous debate and study will be lacking.

Legislators Margaret Haggard and Nicole Terminelli posed several important questions. The agenda packet includes the resolution but does not provide any details as to the MOA, for example. Under this resolution, the Legislature could participate in one or several of the 287(g) scenarios. The resolution and 487(g) reads like the menu at a buffet: take some, take all, leave when you want. The Task Force Model, which deputizes local law enforcement officers to perform federal immigration enforcement functions, was discontinued by President Obama in 2012 due to racial profiling, but then later reintroduced by the Trump administration. Have legislators reviewed the specifics of the MOA that they are authorizing the Sheriff to sign? Has the press or public been provided a copy?

**In addition to the blatant political move, the proposal simply does not make fiscal or operational sense for St. Lawrence County. For a board that prides itself on frugality and public safety, this resolution is counterintuitive. The proponents stated that overtime would not be incurred for training or enforcement. If that’s the case, what current duties will Sheriff deputies not perform? Does the MOA contradict any of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the county and the Deputies’ Union? The Sheriff’s department is currently understaffed. This MOA would only exacerbate an already depleted workforce and leave St. Lawrence County less safe. Is that the calculus of the Legislators—to trade highway safety and community safety for a pro-ICE sound-bite?

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been on the books since 1996, and the St. Lawrence County Legislature has never considered an MOA. Why now? The answer is sadly easy—it is politically expedient. County government should never be about political expediency or grandstanding. County government should be about serving the thousands of residents of St. Lawrence County, not the single resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Legislators of St. Lawrence County, do better, be better, rise above the politics of division.

Mike Zagrobelny and Ginger Storey-Welch

Chair and Vice Chair, St. Lawrence County Democratic Committee

Please consider contacting your St. Lawrence County Legislator to voice your opinion on this matter; details can be found here.