How have 287(g) agreements affected community‑police relations and deportation rates in participating jurisdictions?
Executive summary
287(g) agreements—pacts that deputize local officers to carry out federal immigration functions—have coincided with sharper deportation activity where they are deployed and a measurable erosion of trust between immigrant communities and local police; proponents point to crime-focused removals, while critics document racial profiling, taxpayer costs, and declines in community cooperation [1] [2] [3]. Empirical reviews and advocacy reporting together show 287(g) expands deportation capacity but also produces collateral harms to public safety and civil‑rights outcomes that vary by jurisdiction [2] [4] [5].
1. How the program alters enforcement mechanics—and deportation tallies
By delegating immigration authorities to local agencies, 287(g) acts as a force‑multiplier for federal removal efforts, and ICE reports these partnerships are used to identify and deport individuals involved in serious crimes such as gang activity, drug and sex offenses [1]; ICE‑partnered local screening identified hundreds of thousands of potentially removable people in prior expansions, with more than 400,000 identified by local officers over a roughly 2006–2015 period [2]. Independent analyses complicate the “serious‑crime” frame: large datasets from the Secure Communities/related periods found a substantial share of those funneled into removal had no criminal conviction on file and many were tied to immigration or traffic offenses rather than violent crimes (TRAC analysis summarized in a scholarly review) [4]. Recent reporting of rapid program expansion in 2025–26 links dramatic increases in local agreements with sharp upticks in deportation activity in some places, though granular, jurisdiction‑by‑jurisdiction counts are uneven in public sources [2] [6].
2. Community‑police relations: trust, cooperation, and reporting
Experimental research cited by immigrant‑rights organizations shows that when local police perform immigration enforcement, undocumented immigrants become statistically less likely to trust officers to protect safety, preserve witness confidentiality, or treat people equally—essential elements of cooperative policing—and routine encounters can be perceived as immigration screening rather than public‑safety interactions [2]. Civil‑rights groups and local reports describe damaged relationships with Latino and immigrant communities, reduced willingness to seek healthcare or report crimes, and broader social harms when residents fear arrest or deportation for minor contacts with authorities [5] [3]. These harms are not merely theoretical: advocacy organizations and local public testimony document community opposition at county commission meetings and large public demonstrations when jurisdictions consider joining 287(g) [7] [8].
3. Racial profiling, civil‑rights concerns, and selective outcomes
A recurring critique across legal and civil‑rights reporting is that 287(g) arrangements enable racial profiling and civil‑rights violations because local officers—often with limited immigration training—screen detainees and use minor infractions as entry points to federal removal processes [3] [9]. Scholarly reviews note Latinos have been disproportionately represented among those arrested or deported via 287(g)-linked programs and related fingerprint‑sharing initiatives, suggesting racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes [4]. Program advocates reject claims that partnerships cause bias, arguing instead that local officers need tools to act when immigration issues intersect with criminal investigations [1] [6].
4. Fiscal and political dynamics shaping jurisdictional choices
Localities bear operational costs—training, jail space, staff time—when they implement 287(g), prompting criticism that taxpayer dollars are used to effect deportations rather than local priorities [3]. Political winds determine adoption: while some states and counties have embraced expansion as part of a federal enforcement push, others have enacted statutory limits or resisted, producing a patchwork of participation and sustained public debate in commission hearings and civic forums [3] [7] [10].
5. Net effect: more deportations, costlier and more contentious policing
Synthesis of government claims, empirical reviews, and civil‑rights reporting indicates a consistent pattern: 287(g) increases local capacity to identify and transfer people to ICE custody—contributing to higher removal counts where used—while simultaneously undermining trust and cooperation critical to community policing, raising civil‑rights red flags, and imposing local fiscal burdens [2] [4] [3]. The balance of public‑safety benefits versus social costs depends heavily on local implementation, oversight, and the nature of offences targeted; sources document both the program’s stated crime‑fighting intentions and the real‑world evidence of widespread nonviolent and low‑level cases entering the deportation pipeline [1] [4].