The Wicomico County Sheriff and County Executive recently announced their intention to enter into a MOU with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the 287(g) program. Due to the lack of communication with the County Council or the public, important details about the extent of the county's involvement remain unknown, and there is much misinformation on social media resulting from this failure to communicate. Although county residents are deeply divided on the illegal immigration issue, both sides are wondering why no public meeting was held to inform residents about this hot button topic that may have profound implications for the good or bad. Will county taxpayers bear some of the financial burden for enforcing immigration law? Will the U.S. government indemnify the County from any civil liabilities that may arise? Does the already overburdened Sheriff's Dept. have sufficient human resources to assist in enforcing Federal immigration laws?
Open Agenda S2 E44 287G MOU Update with Jim Adkins
Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with me is Mr.
Mike Goldberg from Delmare, Mr. Dr. Joe
Vonosa from Salsbury. Thanks for coming
out.
>> Thank you.
>> So, uh, we have done our best to cover
the theus ice and people's concerns and
yet we still have a lot of questions. Uh
last week when we were talking about it
with Trish Melvin, uh Mr. Jim Atkins
spoke up and actually said he was going
to do a lot of research and he spent he
spent the best part of the last week
finding other counties that hadus and
trying to find out from the ICE website
what everything means. Mike, I want to
find out from you. I mean, are you is it
any more clear to you at this point
what's going on and what's the
potential? The only part that's clear is
based on our own research, we're not
really hearing anything other than a
press release from the county executive
and a couple of public statements on
mainstream media uh by the executive and
by the sheriff, but beyond that, they
have not really explained themselves,
which is, you know, I find that very
disturbing. Um, you know, we we have to
understand that the sheriff actually has
the control here. you know, it's
constitutional sheriff. He does not work
for the county executive as most county
departments do. This is the sheriff's
decision. And um I, you know, truly wish
that the sheriff had been uh you know, a
little bit more forthcoming, had come
before the council at least just to
explain to the general public the county
executives involvement here. Okay. She
agrees with the sheriff's uh you know,
program here. You know, frankly, I do as
well, but there's most people don't
really understand it right now. The
executive really doesn't have any
involvement beyond this. The detention
center does come under the operational
control of the executive branch. The
sheriff does not control that. So, there
has to be some kind of an agreement
between the sheriff and the executive
branch to use the detention center for
holding um people who are already
detained on federal warrants. Uh but
beyond that, you know, the you know, the
executive may choose to take some
victory laps, but you know, she really
is not otherwise involved here.
>> And and yet, I think you could look at
it the other way. And and I don't know
to what degree any of the the local
politicians are doing their calculus at
home, but you know, it could also
backfire politically too because you you
have gotten a lot of people riled up uh
on an issue. And yeah, a lot of it is
from either misinformation,
disinformation, or actually I think from
what we've seen just ignorance because
in light of a clear explanation from
public officials, people are left to
sort of go to their own. Hey, look. If
they have open work sessions and you
choose not to go or watch them and
you're ignorant, that's on you.
>> Yeah. But this isn't that then you're
going to get 100,000 different opinions
about what's really going on or at least
at the very least.
>> And the irony is most of it
>> doesn't from us.
>> And and the irony is most of those
citizens that do have their own
conclusions or fears are going to go to
the council anyway during public
comment.
>> Yeah. And the the the national polling
does show that the an overwhelming
majority of of Americans do support
increased uh levels of immigration
enforcement even majority of Democrats
>> on the on the on the particular models
that I think that there's like a wide
consensus. But I think the problem is
that's not being explained again to the
public by our officials about what's
going on.
>> I tell you what, let let's bring Jim
Atkins in now and let's let's find out
what he has to say. Okay. And Mike,
would you come back and join us? So stay
with us. When we come back, we're going
to speak with Mr. Jim Atkins from
Ardella about the ICEUS. So stay with
us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Joining us
in the studio is Mr. Jim Atkins from
Mardella. Thank you.
>> Dr. Joinosa, thanks for sticking around.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So we've done a couple episodes talking
about aspects of the 287GOU,
the application with ICE.
>> Yes.
We're still gathering more information
and I understand that you have taken
some time gone on the ice website looked
at Carol County's and I want to find out
more about just what you have found.
>> All right. Well, we we first started out
uh there are eight eight counties in the
state which have an agreement with us.
Out of the eight counties, five of them
have what they call a warrant service
officer. And the basics of that service
is that it allows trained law
enforcement people
to serve a warrant to a incarcerated
subject
>> from ICE.
So, if someone is incarcerated and
they're due to get out
tomorrow, Wednesday,
>> this trained law enforcement person
would walk into the cell, hand them a
federal warrant from ICE, and then ICE
would have a certain number of days
depending on theou
to come get that person.
>> Okay?
>> Or say, we don't want him letting go. It
does not allow the law enforcement
people to go out and enforce immigration
laws.
>> It only allows them if immigration has a
warrant for that person and they are
already in custody to do something.
>> Okay.
>> Which is different than the original
talk that was going on.
>> The original talk was they called it the
jail enforcement model.
>> Yes. But that almost sounds like, well,
we're just going to jail him.
>> Yes.
>> But but then this actually seems from my
perspective fairly reasonable. Someone
who's already incarcerated who has
federal charges pending against them cuz
if they were say wanted for murder in
Kentucky, we would want them to serve
them with Kucky's warrant and wait for
them to be extradited to Kentucky.
>> Now, not everybody's going to agree with
that and and and I understand that. Most
certainly there's a lot of folks who
were at the county council meeting last
week who did not agree with that.
>> Well, I think
>> I don't think they know actually.
>> I think the knowledge is the problem.
Yeah.
>> You you've not gotten any
>> knowledge out of the sheriff. You've not
gotten any knowledge out of the
executive except her wanting to be the
first person to run to the microphone in
the media to say, "We've got this
agreement."
>> Well, you don't have an agreement.
>> Yeah. You can go on the ICE website
every day and two or three times a day
they update that,
>> right?
>> It's timestamped with the date and the
time that is updated
>> and it tells you the participating
counties in the country
>> and the counties who have applied to
participate.
>> Wcomo county has not even applied to
participate as of this morning. They are
not on the website.
>> So what so what what is she referring to
last week?
>> Well, apparently she and the sheriff sat
down and decided that this method of the
warrant service officer was the best of
the three options,
>> but they haven't turned the application
in.
>> Haven't turned the application in. And I
agree with you 100% of the three
options that law enforcement has in this
county.
>> Mhm. In my mind, this is the best option
>> because every person who is
incarcerated
has a check for wanted or check for
warrants
>> Mhm.
>> run on them.
>> Yeah.
>> It's not an infringement on anybody's
rights. If you or I go out there today
and do something that causes us to be
arrested,
>> right,
>> they're going to run a check on us
>> to see if we're wanted anywhere in the
country.
>> So, why wouldn't you want that?
>> So, I mean, this is no different. Yeah.
So,
>> the only problem I have with this entire
program
is that
ICE
is offering
new hires
>> $50,000 as a bonus.
>> Mhm.
>> They are paying off their student loans
if they have any. M
>> ICE's budget, federal budget last year
was $10 million billion dollar with a B.
>> Yeah.
>> This year it is
29.9
billion
>> and going up
>> and going up and it was tripled.
>> So Elon Musk didn't cut this. Elon did
did not go in there small
>> and put the doge on this
>> and even if you agree
that ICE should have all this money and
they should be doing all this when you
look at this agreement
>> Mhm.
>> ICE
if the county enters into this agreement
>> Mhm.
>> ICE will pay to train them
>> Mhm.
>> the law enforcement people. Now, what
that means is they will pay the
instructor
and they will pay the facility that the
class is being held at.
>> Everything else
>> is on the county's nickel.
>> Okay.
>> Right.
>> We don't know how much that is.
>> Don't know how much that is. The
training,
the hours that the law enforcement
people
have to put in, it's a four-week course.
Mhm.
>> The people at home who have to work
overtime to cover the people who go to
Georgia for the training,
>> their overtime is paid by the county.
>> Yeah. And they're also off the street
now.
>> Yes.
>> From where they're doing their county
duties.
>> So, you know, it's it's it's So, could I
just
elaborate on a speculation that I've
said publicly many times? I don't think,
and you know, based on what you've read
and researched, I'm curious your
thoughts. Is this really more of County
Executive Giodano trying to do two
things at once, which is of course get
political um fodder, you know, for it?
uh trying to sort of show her
credentials as it were, but then also
going back to the same constituency that
she tends to hide behind, which is law
enforcement, saying, "I support the
police and now I'm going to give them a
lot of money on our dime to do things
outside of the county that in the end
don't really improve local policing." I
mean,
>> well, I mean, she she is she has kicked
off her campaign, so we we can it's fair
to assume that she is in campaign mode
by her words. Yes. Like that's what I
get. I I guess a lot of the ice drama in
Y Comico County to me is not really
about immigration. It's more about a cop
fetish from one politician. Is that
>> Well, here's
here's a couple problems
that when I look at this, I I see.
Okay. Number one, and this is this is a
very big bullet point and and this is
not Jim Atkins words.
>> Mhm. These are the words that are on
ISIS's website.
>> It's a 10page memorandum. Now, the
memorandum I have because Wakcomo hasn't
submitted one yet is from Carol County,
Maryland.
>> Mhm.
>> But like I say, five out of eight
counties that participate are using
this. So, I would expect that the Wakamo
memorandum would be based off something
that's already been created. I'm sure
Mr. Wilbur is hard at work.
>> More than likely.
>> Yeah.
>> So, here's the first point.
If ICE determines the training provides
a direct service to the government
and it is in the best interest of the
government, the government may issue
travel orders to selected personnel and
travel, housing and perdem expenses will
be enforced.
law enforcement agencies remain
responsible for salaries and benefits.
So the way I understand in reading this
is if the federal government decides
after Wcomo sends
six deputies to be trained
that they need those deputies in
California.
>> Mhm. those guys are going to California
>> and we're paying for
>> we're paying for we're paying the bill.
>> So, you know, that that to me throws up
a red flag right off the bat.
>> It may mean that, it may not, but you
haven't had a chance publicly to ask
that question.
>> You don't.
>> And are and are elected officials going
to ever actually articulate this?
>> Yes.
>> To the public?
>> Liabilities and responsibilities.
Law enforcement, local law enforcement,
us
>> will be responsible to bear the cost of
participating law enforcement personnel
re regard to their personal property,
personal expenses incurred by reason of
death, injury, or incidents giving rise
to liability. So, you want to use our
county police force to go and do your
work for you. But God forbid if
something happens to them.
>> Yeah.
>> It's on the county.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, you're working for the federal
government. It should be on the federal
government if you do it.
>> Well, and and and also to that point is
something that Dr. Venosa brought up
last week. Our sheriff's office,
although I I think they do a great job,
is is taxed to the point that we don't
have student resource officers in every
school. Right. So even before you would
address those budget issues, why
wouldn't we have addressed our own local
budget issues here at home first and in
addition to these other potential budget
pitfalls?
>> Yes. And not not only that, but
none of this is budgeted.
>> Not for this fiscal year.
>> Not not for this fiscal year. None of
this is in there. So let's let's turn it
around on a council then because
ultimately don't they have the power of
the purse for these expenditures? Like
do they have to approve it or is it
because of these agreements we sort of
give up
>> our financial or fiduciary uh authority
on on on some of this?
>> We don't fully understand. We don't. And
we've asked and and then to be honest
with you, no one person we've talked to
has seemed to understand the whole
process. So, can I ask something? Okay.
Sheriff Lewis, Executive Gerardano,
Council President Cannon, anybody in
elected office, the public, at least us
and a few more people are asking, "What
are the financial implications and the
responsibilities of our county based on
this agreement?"
>> Did anything else stand out to you from
the Care County?
>> Yes, one one other other thing did.
And that was the fact
that
the people who are sent for training
have to be
not only qualified law enforcement
officers,
but they have to be trained or have
experience
as
inmate rights,
conduct, and responsibility. Okay. Now,
I understand the sheriff's department
and the deputies have law enforcement
experience. They know the law and how to
apply it. The correctional officers
at the detention center know the conduct
and the responsibility of the inmates.
But do each group know the
responsibilities and requirements of the
other group? And knowing both those
requirements,
>> it's a lot
>> is the requirement of going to this
class.
>> And and our our elected sheriff, Mike
Lewis, does not actually control the
detention center.
>> Exactly.
>> Uh our county executive and her staff
actually have control of the detention
center.
>> So we're we're really asking one hand to
know what the other hand's doing when
they don't ever actually they're not
part of the same department.
>> Right. So
>> the only thing that in my mind when you
go through this
that gives
some
relief
or peace to me in thisou
is that
law enforcement is only serving warrants
>> to already incarcerated people.
>> Yeah. and they're not out. They are not
enforced. They're not out there to go
out and round people up and bring them
in. That's not what this is.
>> And I think that's the great irony of
this whole sort of drama is that for a
lot of people in the community,
including those that spoke at the
council and elsewhere that are, you
know, worried, it actually, to your
point, is sort of the least intrusive,
the least aggressive uh agreement you
could get. And yet it may very well be
the most expensive. But but this is a
question that I have posed to a couple
people. I mean, I know as open, we have
asked the sheriff's office to come in
and talk to us about this.
>> They have politely declined at at every
opportunity.
>> But going back to checking
to see if someone is wanted when they
are arrested,
that's been going on for 50 years.
>> I think that's nothing has changed. in
in theseus with ICE, they're not new.
This is not something that started in
Donald Trump's term.
>> This goes back to the 90s.
>> Yes. So So some of these counties have
actually been in these MUS previous,
>> right?
>> U
>> but a large amount of them are getting
out of them, too.
>> Are some that are getting out. Trish
Melvin spoke that last week. But in a
normal work session type of environment,
there would be people who have expertise
in this to come to speak to the council
and the public about hey these are the
things you can expect and these are the
things that sometimes are pitfalls and
it could be about money. I mean if we're
if we're worried about how much money we
may have to spend nine months from now
in the next fiscal budget,
>> u this would be a good conversation to
have before we spend the money and don't
have it left to save.
>> And I agree with that. But the point I'm
trying to make is that signing thisou to
participate in this program,
they're already participating in this
program and they always have because
when someone's arrested and they check
for warrants,
>> they contact the issuing jurisdiction
>> with the warrant. Do you want this
person or not?
>> Right?
>> Because we're going to release him on
such and such a date. If you want him,
come get him. What? We've always done
that. So, what's different now?
>> Well, what's different is that we're
giving the feds more of our tax money.
>> Well, yes.
>> And a few politicians get to run on
information. Yeah. I think it's more
that may be. Yes.
>> Well, well, thank you very much. Thanks
for the information.
>> When we come back, we're going to bring
back in Mike Goldberg and we're going to
find out just how he feels about this
new information. So, stay with us. We'll
be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. So,
rejoining us in the studio is Mr. Mike
Goldberg. Thank you for sticking around.
Dr. Joinosa, thanks for being here.
>> Be like, "And this guy still
>> Yeah, he's still here.
>> And the doors were locked. I couldn't
get that in." So, yeah.
>> So, uh, so Jim had so much information
and and was able to synthesize it down
into some very, uh, small bites so that
we could we could use that.
>> Yeah. Uh we are starting to realize that
maybe this model is well less intrusive
>> than than the initial one that was put
out there,
>> but we haven't heard any any public
words from the from the sheriff, at
least addressing the concerns for them
from the folks, which is disappointing.
>> Yeah.
>> But Mike, I want to ask you, I mean, are
you comfortable with thisou model that
they're talking about?
>> I I am comfortable with it. Um I think
it's uh I I think it's the right way to
go. My beef is limited to the recurring
fact that our government, especially the
executive branch, and now I've got to
throw in the the sheriff's department in
that they are simply not communicating
with the people. Um, this has been an
ongoing problem the last couple of years
and um I just don't understand why, you
know, the this is being kept under
cover. Well, you know, one one of the
things that Jim brought up that I
thought was interesting is he's gone to
the ICE website and uh and and they're
updating this multiple times in a day
and Wakcom County does not have a signed
agreement or even an application in. So,
Joe, I'm I'm interested what what was
the county executive talking about last
week?
>> I think she was I think she was talking
to a constituency of police union
officials. I think she was talking to,
you know, a sliver of the base that this
is a red meat, you know, for them. Um,
that's what that's what she is talking
about and what she's doing. This is this
has, again, the public needs to
understand this. This has nothing to do
with immigration. This has nothing
really to do, in my opinion, with actual
community safety because we're taking
actual officers off the streets or out
of the county to literally leave for
for, you know, training purposes at
times if this happens. This is all about
political posturing and in my view um
standing behind the thin blue line as it
were for votes.
>> So do do you see any similarities to her
announcement about the ICE agreement to
the Wipkin Creek State Park back in
February where she like vehemently was
like this is great news. That was what
she put on her Facebook page.
>> Yeah.
uh and then found out later that there's
an issue. But but we're still not even
with a signed agreement for with Typican
Creek State Park.
>> Yeah. And again, that'll I'm sure be
developed as time goes on and whether
this will or not is still an open
question. Um but ultimately, you're
seeing how the politics is getting in
the way of the actual governance. Um and
I and I concur, Mike. I think, you know,
I I want to be very clear. I I I respect
Sheriff Lewis for his expertise in law
enforcement. I I have no doubt he do
does things that he thinks are in the
best interest of the community and he
knows this community far better than I
ever will know that that is that is a
given. Um but we need to be honest. You
know, it is a political position. He is
a very political sheriff. There's no
denying that. I don't even think he
would deny it. Um, but more what worries
me is that
he, the executive, and I'm going to put
in the council on this, they all have a
responsibility to clarify to the public
what their intentions are. They don't
have to update us on the specifics of
the policy yet because it's developing.
But none of these branches of government
or none of these elected officials have
got they've not been proactive on any
level of simply coming out and saying
this is what our intentions are. this is
what this agreement entails or could
entail. And you're you leave the public
to go off in a million directions. Some
of it in I think kind of hysterical ways
and others in sort of more uber
political ways.
>> People become very, you know, reactive,
you know, to, you know, incomplete, you
know, information.
The way this is handled in terms of
their offiscation is is really almost
impressive because I feel like they
could have done this any other way.
>> Let's talk about one other thing that's
impressive.
>> Yeah.
>> There's been times that the county
executive has had some negative things
to say about us personally.
>> Mhm.
>> But it is impressive of how well she
runs her political machine. Sure.
>> Wouldn't you say? I mean,
>> like
she's not intelligence like and we've
never called her that. That might have
been some words for us.
>> No, no. There uh and let's you know uh
there are multiple intelligences and I
think uh the executive has very good
political skills. I think she weaponizes
her identity politics in a very good way
that others maybe in the area wish they
could. Um,
and you have to always understand that
the campaign never ends in this day and
age, especially with this kind of a
politician. Meaning, you're not just
going to get uh, no disrespect to him,
but you're not going to get a Josh
Hastings who's sort of like a
bureaucratic-minded person who's going
to do the work and not think of the
optics. Um, the executive, this
particular executive in this era we're
in is in campaign mode every day of the
week, every moment. And that has an
impact on any policy.
>> No, no question. I I completely agree,
Joe. I I think what a lot of voters
don't understand that there it's one
skill set to get yourself elected and
it's another skill set to actually
govern. From what I've seen in my 68
years, most people who hold elected
office don't have both of those skill
sets. They're rarely uh
>> you know they're salesmen and you know
to get yourself elected you have to be a
a a salesman essentially but it doesn't
mean that you actually understand how
government works and that you know how
to you know even effectively communicate
with respect to government policy
correct to the voters. Um, and this is
how people get fooled, you know, so
frequently. And this is why whether
you're looking at the local level or
whether you're looking at the national
level, that the people who really belong
on the very bottom somehow seem to rise
to the top because they are good at
selling, you know, their brand.
>> Makavelli's got a great book about this.
You may
>> Well, thank you both. I really
appreciate your insight into uh
analyzing what Jim had to say about the
the ICE agreement and or maybe even the
lack of agreement so far. So, thank you
both for coming out.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks for watching this episode of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode.
All right, stop. Collaborate and listen.
Topics:
