Cayuga County residents again used Tuesday night’s Legislature meeting to challenge Sheriff Brian Schenck’s participation in a lawsuit against New York’s new restrictions on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Several speakers argued the lawsuit could damage trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, continuing a debate that also dominated part of the Legislature’s August meeting.
New York’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act restricts local law enforcement agencies from entering or remaining in agreements under Section 287(g) of federal immigration law, which allows designated local officers to perform certain federal civil immigration enforcement functions.
Schenck joined 14 other county sheriffs in an August lawsuit challenging the state’s prohibition on those agreements. The governor and attorney general have defended the law, while the sheriffs argue the state has improperly restricted local law enforcement cooperation with federal authorities.
Cayuga County residents who spoke Tuesday largely focused on the effect that relationship could have locally.
Kate LeBlanc, who identified herself as a county employee speaking on her own time, questioned why Schenck joined the lawsuit if the Sheriff’s Office doesn’t intend to enter a 287(g) agreement.
She said elected officials should distinguish personal political beliefs from actions taken using the county’s name and authority.
Brian Tucci, who identified himself as a disabled veteran, said he understood the Sheriff’s Office’s stated interest in preserving access to information from federal agencies but argued county leaders should also be willing to publicly challenge federal immigration officers when their conduct violates constitutional rights.
Former teacher Nan Phillips said fear surrounding federal immigration enforcement can affect children even when their parents are legally present and working in the United States.
She described situations in which students from migrant families stopped attending school after immigration enforcement activity because of fears surrounding raids.
Rebecca Robbins focused on the trust between immigrant residents and law enforcement.
She cited the recent immigration enforcement operation at Nutrition Bar Confectioners in Cato and argued the Sheriff’s Office’s participation in the lawsuit could make residents less willing to report crimes or cooperate with authorities.
Janet Reohr, who also spoke about immigration enforcement at the Legislature’s August meeting, made a similar argument.
She said the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act doesn’t prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration law but limits how local personnel and resources can be used for federal civil immigration enforcement.
The concern, she said, is that closer association with ICE could lead residents to avoid contacting police even when they’re victims or witnesses.
The debate follows an August meeting where multiple residents also spoke about local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Official minutes from that meeting show several speakers raised the issue during privilege of the floor.
Tuesday’s speakers also referenced the Cato workplace operation, which has remained a flashpoint in the broader debate over the county’s role in immigration enforcement.
The state law’s central restriction involves 287(g) agreements. Under those agreements, ICE can delegate certain federal immigration enforcement functions to participating state or local officers. The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act required existing agreements to be terminated by Aug. 25.
The lawsuit filed by the 15 sheriffs seeks to overturn that restriction.
No resolution concerning the lawsuit was before the Cayuga County Legislature Tuesday, and lawmakers didn’t take formal action on the issue.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.