Skip to main content

How Expanded 287(g) Program Turns Local Police Into Deportation Agents


The Trump administration is quietly using a program called 287(g) to turn local police and sheriff’s departments into arms of its deportation machine.

In the coming weeks, the Trump administration is likely to hit a milestone of 1,000 participating state and local agencies in at least 40 states. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is aggressively recruiting for this deportation-collaboration program. It is now offering cash to local police in exchange for “locating” our immigrant neighbors, as it attempts to reach a level of deportations never before seen in our nation’s history.

President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise to remove 20 million people from the country. That's 5.8 percent of our population. This ambitious project – most visible in the masked deportation squads that are smashing car windows and forcing people into black vans – is likely to grow even more nefarious as ICE leeches on to local police to help it.

How Local Police Become Deportation Assistants

The 287(g) Program is a set of partnerships between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and state and local agencies that effectively turns local officials into ICE agents, authorizing selected officers to identify, arrest, and process certain people for immigration enforcement and ultimately deportation.

Local law enforcement participating in the 287(g) program are redeployed from local public safety matters to be an ICE force multiplier. This could include interrogating anyone they believe to be a noncitizen about their right to be in the country and asking for their citizenship papers. It could mean that local jails continue to hold people – grandparents, caretakers and other long-time residents who lack legal status – beyond when they would otherwise be released after a minor infraction or posting bail until ICE comes to take them away. Local police officers become secretaries for ICE - doing paperwork and helping process people for deportations.

Many law enforcement leaders oppose 287(g) because it is a drain on local resources. It not only wastes police officers’ time, it also has led to costly lawsuits for constitutional rights violations, including wrongly holding US citizens. Numerous studies show that this program hurts public safety. People are less likely to come forward to seek police protection when they know calling 911 could result in their family member or friend being deported.

Record Number of Police Now Working With ICE

At the end of Barack Obama’s administration, there were just 32 participating state and local law enforcement agencies. That leapt to 152 in Trump’s first term, and the administration removed guardrails like expiration dates for participation agreements.

Joe Biden’s administration left the program largely intact, refusing to kick out participating law enforcement agencies with records of racial profiling and anti-immigrant abuse, despite calls from the ACLU and our partners.

Now, in just eight months of the second Trump administration, the number of local agencies opting to act as deportation force multipliers has grown by 600 percent. The program has encroached into states that until now had few or no participating agencies, such as Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Utah, and West Virginia.

287(g) Program Expands in Dangerous New Ways

Congress first authorized 287(g) in 1996, permitting the federal government to delegate certain federal immigration enforcement responsibilities to designated state and local officers, subject to training and close supervision by federal officials. Now, just as the Trump administration has moved to exploit other long-standing legal authorities, it has gone far beyond what Congress intended and morphed this program into a larger, cannibalizing force, the full implications of which we have yet to see.

In the coming months, we expect ICE to tap local police to join its multi-agency, masked deportation squads across the country. Already, in April, ICE boasted a “first-of-its-kind statewide operation” involving ICE and more than a dozen sheriff’s offices, the state of Florida, the FBI and other federal agencies. Blurring law enforcement agencies into a single, unaccountable deportation force is a recipe for civil rights abuses and government waste.

ICE has also illegally relied on 287(g) to detain people at the notorious “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center,  a hastily constructed facility in the middle of the Florida Everglades, which is surrounded by alligators, snakes, mosquitos, and swampland. The ACLU and our partners recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of people detained there.

ICE has also penned agreements with state National Guards in Texas, Florida and West Virginia. It has tapped campus police departments and even agencies that are not law enforcement-oriented, like the Florida Department of Lottery Services.

Our Communities Are Fighting Back

We are seeing vocal opposition to agreements under consideration in communities nationwide. At a July meeting in\Utah County, Utah “the vast majority” of public input during a commission meeting on a 287(g) agreement was opposed – citing racial profiling, the risk of unidentified ICE agents, and “religious values of loving their neighbors.” In Miami, Florida, lines of people gathered hours before the meeting and delivered hours passionate public comments against the city joining the program. In Camden, Delaware, the city quietly approved an agreement and then backtracked and withdrew after robust public opposition. This led to the state passing legislation to ban these agreements state-wide.

If local governments choose to participate in the 287(g) program, despite community opposition, they can put limits and oversight on how local law enforcement is supporting federal deportation agents and how this impacts community members.

We expect demands for transparency and accountability to grow in the coming weeks and months – the longer we all witness the violence of the masked deportation squads, the more opposition to them will grow.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...
Post a Comment
Read more

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...
Post a Comment
Read more