Mecklenburg Sheriff Says ICE Ignored Alert About Undocumented Man

Key Takeaways

Sheriff McFadden announced ICE failed to respond to a February 21, 2025, custody notification about an undocumented individual.
Mecklenburg County notifies ICE via the DCI/NCIC system but doesn’t honor detainers without judicial warrants, citing constitutional concerns.
ICE criticized uncooperative jurisdictions, warning of increased enforcement, but faces resource limitations affecting responses to county notifications.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden has brought a pressing issue to light, saying that his office informed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about an undocumented person in their custody, but ICE never responded. This announcement on February 21, 2025, has stirred fresh debate about how effectively local and federal authorities cooperate on immigration matters. Issues like this have often highlighted the challenges in communication between county law enforcement and federal immigration agencies.

The case brings attention to Mecklenburg County’s complicated history with ICE. Located in North Carolina, the county has been labeled a “sanctuary” jurisdiction, meaning it often limits its level of collaboration with ICE. These debates have shaped the county’s policies over recent years, drawing national attention. Sheriff McFadden stated that his office used a standard communication protocol to notify ICE. Specifically, when someone identified as undocumented is in custody, the sheriff’s office sends out a message using the DCI/NCIC system, a law enforcement database, to let ICE know. Sheriff McFadden defended this process, calling it a reasonable way to meet their legal duty without committing local resources to immigration enforcement.

Mecklenburg Sheriff Says ICE Ignored Alert About Undocumented Man

However, ICE’s reported non-response has led to several questions, both about the sheriff’s approach and ICE’s own priorities or resources. Why didn’t ICE act? Are there gaps in how ICE processes notifications from counties like Mecklenburg? These unanswered questions are adding fuel to the broader debate about immigration enforcement and public safety.

History of Local and Federal Disputes

To understand the situation better, you first need to look at Mecklenburg County’s broader relationship with ICE. This is not the first time the county has been in the news over such matters. In January 2025, ICE arrested Jose Barajas-Diaz, a Mexican national who had been released from Mecklenburg County custody despite serious criminal charges. Barajas-Diaz had been convicted of felony death by motor vehicle due to a driving-while-impaired accident. ICE stated that their agency had issued a formal “detainer” to request his continued detention so immigration officers could take custody, but the county did not comply with the request. As a result, Barajas-Diaz was released before ICE eventually apprehended him.

This failure to honor the ICE detainer drew sharp criticism from federal officials. In a public statement, John Tsoukaris, ICE’s Interim Atlanta Field Office Director, did not mince words. He warned, “Uncooperative jurisdictions such as Mecklenburg County should be on notice that as long as criminal offenders are being released, they should get used to seeing a lot more ICE at-large enforcement activity in their communities.” This underscores ICE’s stance on the issue: they rely on local law enforcement to detain individuals flagged by the agency for removal. When counties choose not to honor these detainers, ICE says it forces their officers to operate within communities, potentially creating greater risks for local residents and officers alike.

Sheriff McFadden Defends County Practices

Despite this criticism, Sheriff McFadden maintains that Mecklenburg County’s policies are reasonable under the circumstances. He states that the county does notify ICE of undocumented persons held in local custody by using the DCI/NCIC database. However, he strongly opposes detaining someone beyond their scheduled release time unless ICE obtains a judicial warrant. In his view, extending someone’s detention without proper legal authority violates constitutional principles. McFadden criticizes ICE’s reliance on detainers, which are not issued by a judge, noting that they place local authorities in a tough legal position.

The sheriff’s office insists that the notification process they follow should strike a fair middle ground. According to his stance, the procedure fulfills their legal duty to notify ICE while avoiding practices that could harm community trust. For many local jurisdictions, community trust is a key reason for limiting cooperation with ICE. Law enforcement leaders argue that being too closely tied to federal immigration agencies could discourage undocumented residents from reporting crimes, serving as witnesses, or cooperating with police on local cases.

Sheriff McFadden also expressed frustration that criticism of his office often focuses on the county’s role while ignoring failures by ICE to act on notifications when they are made. He highlighted this latest case as an example of the federal agency’s lack of responsiveness.

ICE’s Challenges in Handling Notifications

The situation leads to important questions about ICE’s ability to process and act on all notifications from local jurisdictions. When Mecklenburg County alerted ICE about the undocumented individual in question, it used the standard DCI/NCIC system. Yet no ICE officer ever arrived to take custody of the individual, raising questions about possible gaps in their operations.

ICE has a vast national workload, and its officers often have to prioritize which cases receive attention. This can result in certain notifications going unanswered, especially in counties that do not routinely hold individuals solely on ICE detainers. Given resource limitations and varying enforcement priorities, the agency may not have the ability to respond to every situation.

Still, critics argue that failing to respond to cases flagged by local jurisdictions undermines ICE’s efforts to promote public safety. If local law enforcement agencies like Mecklenburg County are following procedure to notify ICE, federal officers not showing up could weaken trust between the agencies and make future cooperation less likely.

Ongoing National Debate

This back-and-forth tug in Mecklenburg County mirrors a larger debate across the United States. On one hand, ICE stresses that local cooperation is essential for effective immigration control and for ensuring people with criminal charges are not released back into communities. On the other hand, local leaders argue that federal immigration laws should not dictate how they handle their own priorities. Many counties, especially those with large immigrant populations, believe that becoming too involved in immigration enforcement hurts public safety by alienating their communities.

In North Carolina specifically, ICE has reported that more than 500 detainers were not honored by law enforcement agencies in one recent fiscal year. Federal officials claim this allows individuals charged with serious offenses to walk free. But counties like Mecklenburg counter that these detainers require significant legal justification, which federal officials often do not provide.

For residents of Mecklenburg County, opinions on these policies vary greatly. Some worry that the county’s refusal to extend custody for ICE puts the community at risk by potentially releasing dangerous individuals. Others support the sheriff’s stance, noting that local law enforcement has neither the time nor resources to deal with immigration arrests on top of their existing duties.

Future Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Sheriff McFadden has publicly called for better cooperation and transparency between Mecklenburg County and ICE going forward. He believes both sides need to take steps toward improving communication so that incidents like this do not happen again. However, it may take more than words to foster any meaningful change. It’s likely that these tensions will persist as long as federal laws and local policies continue to clash.

For now, Mecklenburg County’s notification system remains in place. Sheriff McFadden insists the process complies with legal obligations while protecting the county’s values. He has expressed willingness to work with federal agencies in ways that reflect both community needs and public safety goals.

In conclusion, the relationship between Mecklenburg County and ICE remains fraught with challenges. Sheriff Garry McFadden’s recent statement about ICE’s failure to follow up on a notification highlights deeper communication problems. As debates over immigration enforcement continue nationwide, both local and federal stakeholders must work together to build trust and improve how these agencies interact. For more information regarding ICE procedures and policies, visit ICE’s official page.

As stated by VisaVerge.com, incidents like these underscore the complexity of balancing federal immigration goals with local public safety needs. Moving forward, finding common ground will be critical to solving these issues in Mecklenburg County and beyond.

Learn Today

ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → Federal agency enforcing immigration laws, focusing on removal of undocumented individuals and criminal aliens.
Detainer → A formal request from ICE asking local law enforcement to hold an individual beyond their release time for immigration proceedings.
Sanctuary Jurisdiction → A region limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented residents and maintain community trust.
DCI/NCIC System → Law enforcement database used for sharing information, including notifications about undocumented individuals with federal agencies like ICE.
Judicial Warrant → Legal document issued by a judge, authorizing law enforcement to perform actions such as detention or search.

This Article in a Nutshell

Mecklenburg Sheriff McFadden exposed ICE’s non-response to an undocumented detainee notification, reigniting debates over local-federal immigration cooperation. Using the DCI/NCIC system, McFadden fulfilled legal duties without extending detention unlawfully. Critics question ICE’s prioritization, while supporters stress community trust. This clash highlights challenges of balancing public safety, legal protocols, and immigrant rights nationwide.
— By VisaVerge.com