If the federal government wants to put a large immigrant detention center in Stafford, the county may not be able to stop it.
The locality is a possible location for one of several new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities that could be set up under a new deportation system, according to a Washington Post story published last week.
And while that news has stirred conversation, details are still murky, which means reactions have taken the form of hypotheticals.
Stafford Board of Supervisors Chairman Deuntay Diggs said Monday that even though the news came out a few days ago, the county hasn’t been officially notified about a potential detention center.
“We still haven’t heard anything,” he said.
And Stafford Supervisor Darrell English, who represents the Hartwood District, said he’s considering the story just a rumor right now.
“The county knows nothing about it,” he said.
One thing, though, seems to be clear: who owns the property in question is important.
“The permitting and zoning requirements would depend on the property’s ownership and control,” Stafford government spokeswoman Shannon Eubanks wrote in an email.
The proposed Stafford operation would hold 5,000-10,000 beds, according to the Post story, and it would be part of a system aimed at improving the federal government’s efficiency in deporting undocumented immigrants.
The decision to put something in the county isn’t final, though. The news story was based on a “draft solicitation” ICE plans to share with private detention companies “to gauge interest and refine the plan.” If approved, a formal request for bids could follow.
If the federal government owned a potential detention center site, the land would “generally not be subject to local zoning regulations, as federal facilities such as Marine Corps Base Quantico operate, though on a much smaller scale,” Eubanks wrote.
If the U.S. government leased a property or building, the project would have to comply with Stafford’s zoning ordinance, according to Eubanks.
“Under a preliminary review, such a use could potentially fall under the county’s definition of a ‘public facility,’ which includes corrections and law-enforcement-related facilities operated by a governmental entity,” she wrote. “Public facilities are permitted by right in most zoning districts in the county, though any applicable building permits, code requirements, and state or federal approvals would still apply.”
Diggs underscored that the initial news of an ICE center is based on a draft document, which means nothing has been finalized.
“It alarms everybody, and they want answers,” he said.
But the county can’t give definitive answers just yet, Diggs said. And he noted that even people commenting online about the story may not be thinking of all that an ICE facility could bring with it.
For example, he said, the federal government may not help pay for any additional infrastructure a site could require, as a private developer might. That could mean Stafford taxpayers footing the bill.
Overall, Diggs is against the notion of ICE building a detention center in Stafford, he wrote in a social media post.
In the post, he wrote that the county government is committed to transparency and will provide updates as more information on the issue becomes available.
But the community is also committed to “treating one another — and those placed in our care — with respect, compassion and a recognition of their inherent worth,” according to the supervisor.
“I believe in the rule of law and personal accountability, and I maintain that how we treat the vulnerable reflects the character of our community,” he wrote. “This is not a partisan issue. For too long, both major political parties have failed to effectively address our nation’s broken immigration system, often prioritizing political objectives over meaningful solutions and the welfare of individuals.
“History demonstrates the harm that results when fear dictates policy and individuals remain silent to avoid criticism or personal loss. We must not repeat those mistakes.”
