Listen to the article
Immigration Enforcement Programs Spark Debate in Franklin County
Conflicting narratives about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations have emerged in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, highlighting national tensions over immigration enforcement policies and their local impacts.
At a recent Franklin County Commissioners meeting, Chambersburg resident Herb Doloway shared a concerning story about immigrant friends who, despite being in the country legally with Green Cards and pursuing citizenship, now fear leaving their homes.
“My wife and I have become friends with an immigrant family, legal, doing the right thing,” Doloway explained. “Recently, we asked them to come to our home. They refused. They’re afraid to leave their house.”
Doloway also described classroom incidents where children expressed fear their parents might be taken away while they were at school, painting a picture of widespread anxiety among immigrant communities.
Local attorney Clint Barkdoll countered that misconceptions about ICE’s 287(g) programs are fueling unnecessary fears. The 287(g) program allows the Department of Homeland Security to enter agreements with state and local law enforcement, essentially deputizing officers to perform limited immigration enforcement functions.
“There seems to be this misconception that if you’re in the 287(g) program, that’s inviting federal ICE officers into your jurisdiction to do enforcement actions. It’s actually quite the opposite,” Barkdoll explained. “I think if citizens really dug into these programs, you would agree that you would prefer to have your local police office, sheriff’s office—you’d rather have them on the ground doing these things than the federal ICE officers.”
Approximately 60 agencies across Pennsylvania currently participate in 287(g) programs, which supporters claim create more community-responsive immigration enforcement.
The debate in Franklin County comes amid heightened tensions following a recent case where a Mexican national was charged with killing a Chambersburg woman in a hit-and-run crash. The case has been cited by those favoring stricter immigration enforcement as evidence of system failures.
“This is one of the reasons localities have signed on to these programs,” Barkdoll noted, “because if there is someone here illegally and they may be on a warrant list, these are criminals that have committed crimes, they’re on a warrant or a fugitive list, ICE wants local agencies to help find them and arrest them, to prevent exactly what we’re talking about.”
Michele Jansen of News Talk 103.7FM highlighted potential financial benefits of 287(g) participation, noting that in some jurisdictions, “25% of the salaries could be covered” for officers involved, along with equipment grants and vehicle funding—potentially up to $100,000 in some locations.
“They’re not using our taxpayer dollars frivolously,” Jansen argued. “Part of their regular duties is getting criminals off the street. This is just putting that layer of when you’re here illegally, especially, and you’re committing crimes, no, this shouldn’t be happening.”
Jansen also questioned the context of Doloway’s account, suggesting it represented “emotional agitation propaganda” that lacks nuance and context. “You give a very emotional story, you allow only that one facet to be heard, and then you pretend like that, writ large, explains the whole thing,” she said.
The Franklin County debate reflects broader national divisions on immigration policy, where concerns about public safety and enforcement often clash with humanitarian considerations and fears about profiling or discrimination.
Local officials have suggested a more comprehensive public discussion about how 287(g) programs actually operate might help address community concerns and correct misconceptions.
As Pennsylvania continues to navigate these complex issues, the balance between effective law enforcement and community trust remains at the center of the immigration debate—with both advocates and critics pointing to real-world consequences of policy decisions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The reported incidents of children expressing fear about their parents being taken away highlight the very real human impact of immigration enforcement policies. Finding humane solutions that protect vulnerable families is crucial.
Absolutely. The wellbeing of children should be the top priority when it comes to immigration enforcement. Ensuring families are not torn apart and children are not traumatized must be a key consideration.
Interesting to hear about the conflicting narratives and concerns from both sides. Local communities play a key role in navigating these challenging issues around immigration enforcement and its impacts. Fact-based dialogue and consideration of diverse perspectives will be crucial.
Agreed. Striking the right balance between effective enforcement and protecting vulnerable immigrant communities is no easy task. Open communication and a focus on facts over fear-mongering will be critical moving forward.
This is a complex and sensitive issue. It’s important to get the facts right and address any misconceptions about immigration enforcement programs like 287(g). Ensuring the rights and safety of all residents, regardless of immigration status, should be the top priority.
The concerns raised about immigrant families being too afraid to leave their homes are quite troubling. Ensuring a sense of safety and belonging for all residents, regardless of immigration status, should be a top priority for local leaders.
It’s encouraging to see local officials and community members engaging in this dialogue to better understand the nuances and impacts of immigration enforcement programs. An open and fact-based approach is vital for finding workable solutions.
Misconceptions and misinformation can certainly exacerbate fears within immigrant communities. Providing clear, factual information about immigration enforcement programs like 287(g) is an important step in addressing these concerns.
As this debate unfolds, I hope all sides can approach it with empathy, nuance and a focus on facts over rhetoric. Balancing effective enforcement with protecting vulnerable communities is a complex challenge, but one that is crucial to get right.