Letter from Virginia Kennedy
Taking Exception to the Editorial
In regard to the February editorial, “Was Sheriff Devlin Simply Ahead of the Curve?,” I wonder why not send a news reporter to interview Sheriff Devlin on the record to see if this is actually his motivation for signing a 287(g) agreement with ICE, rather than guessing that it could be? Better yet, given the controversy and the fact that he made the decision to sign a 287(g) agreement unilaterally, maybe a better question is why Sheriff Devlin doesn’t hold a press conference to clarify his position with facts so the whole community could be clear on his motivations?
The editorial posits, “Could it not be that Sheriff Devlin was simply getting out ahead of the curve? That he considered the 287(g) agreement to be the best path forward to protect Otsego County from an insurgence of ICE agents and to prevent the arrest of illegal immigrants who are not the worst of the worst but collateral damage?” But, why should Otsego County need protection from an “insurgence” of ICE agents? If protecting the county from an ICE “insurgence” is the reason for partnering with ICE, isn’t that a kind of blackmail: If you sign this agreement, we won’t send an “insurgence” of agents to terrorize your county? As the editorial states, “collateral damage” is a real issue. Thousands of people who pose no threat, many of whom have been pursuing legal means to be here, are continually swept up in indiscriminate raids.
The list of states you note are all red states. ICE’s military insurgences are all happening in blue cities. However, when ICE does want to come to the red states listed, at least a couple seem very unhappy about it. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker is extremely unhappy at a plan by the Trump administration to establish a new ICE detention facility in his state, afraid it will hurt the local economy. He’s especially upset that “community input” was disregarded in the decision to locate the facility in his state, and he’s fighting back. Apparently, 287(g) agreements were not enough to “protect” Mississippi from the “insurgence.”
The editorial concludes, “There are clearly bad actors on both sides of this issue. We don’t think Sheriff Devlin is one of them.” Which issue is being referenced? Immigration writ large? The issue of signing 287(g) agreements? If it’s immigration writ large, couldn’t this issue be addressed by using some of the billions of dollars granted to DHS and ICE in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and hiring vastly more properly credentialed immigration judges to hear the incredible backlog of immigration cases for people pursuing legal immigration?
Simultaneously, hiring more well trained and credentialed law enforcement officers and giving them the time and investigatory resources to actually pursue criminal investigations that will stand up in a court of law could replace the shoddily trained and heavily armed forces on the streets of blue cities. Then our county wouldn’t need “protection” from an “insurgence” of militarily armed agents who cause “collateral damage” in the first place. Instead of invading armies terrorizing communities and untrained agents shooting Americans on the street, we could actually strengthen the rule of law.
Virginia Kennedy
Group Leader, CooperstownOneonta Indivisible
