Can US ICE agents operate in Canada, and vice versa, under the partnership?
Executive summary
The United States and Canada routinely conduct integrated, cross-border law enforcement operations under formal frameworks that permit designated officers from one country to operate in the other’s territory or shared waters—but those activities are tightly circumscribed by bilateral agreements, domestic laws, and host‑country control rather than allowing unilateral policing by agencies like ICE (HSI) or the RCMP [1] [2] [3].
1. What “operate” means in practice: joint teams, cross‑designation, not free‑roaming foreign police
Cross‑border cooperation between U.S. and Canadian forces typically takes the form of joint task forces, co‑located investigative teams, and cross‑designated officers who act under specific agreements and central authorities; examples include Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs)/Border Enforcement Security Taskforces (BESTs) and maritime Shiprider/ICMLEO operations where officers are formally designated to act across the maritime boundary [4] [3] [1]. These arrangements allow on‑the‑ground activity—boarding, investigations, interdictions—only when officers have been appointed as “designated” cross‑border law enforcement officers and operate pursuant to the Framework Agreement and implementing domestic law, not as open‑ended permission for a foreign agency to exercise unilateral arrest authority [2] [5].
2. ICE and its investigative arm (HSI) can participate, but under constraints
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the investigative component of ICE, is a primary U.S. actor in cross‑border task forces and maintains an international footprint to support transnational investigations; HSI and CBSA have announced joint task forces to disrupt firearms and smuggling networks, reflecting co‑operation rather than extraterritorial policing autonomy [6]. BESTs are described as ICE‑led but use co‑located and cross‑designated assets from U.S. and Canadian partners, underlining that ICE works alongside Canadian agencies within agreed frameworks rather than acting alone [3].
3. Shiprider/ICMLEO shows the model for cross‑border operational authority at sea
The Shiprider or Integrated Cross‑Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations framework is an explicit example where host nations cross‑designate officers to operate on each other’s vessels in shared waterways; designated officers may carry weapons and act in accordance with the host country’s laws and central authority approvals, and information collected is bound by rules on use and sharing set out in the agreement [1] [5]. The 2009 permanentization of Shiprider and subsequent Framework Agreement demonstrate that maritime cross‑operations are lawful and structured, not ad hoc or unilateral [7] [5].
4. Legal controls, central authorities and domestic statutes limit unilateral action
Canada’s Integrated Cross‑border Law Enforcement Operations Act implements the Framework Agreement domestically by specifying who can be appointed as designated officers and the training and approval processes required; that statutory regime demonstrates that cross‑border officers must be authorized by central authorities and comply with host‑country law—again precluding free exercise of foreign police powers absent authorization [2]. The Framework Agreement itself prescribes intelligence‑driven operations, consented sharing, and restrictions on use of information gathered solely in the other party’s territory [1] [5].
5. Political momentum and proposals to expand deployments—but not yet unilateral authority
There is political interest in expanding integrated operations into land and air domains, and legislative proposals have sought to authorize broader stationing of U.S. personnel in Canada and vice versa; such proposals, however, represent domestic political agendas and future negotiations rather than existing open authority for ICE to “operate” in Canada without Canada’s consent [8]. Public communiques and forums (CBCF, CBLE‑AC) show continued high‑level cooperation and information‑sharing commitments, reinforcing the negotiated, reciprocal character of the partnership [9] [10] [11].
6. Bottom line: permitted, conditional, and controlled — not mutual extraterritorial policing
Under current frameworks, U.S. agents (including HSI/ICE personnel) and Canadian officers can and do operate on each other’s side of the border within formal, agreed mechanisms—cross‑designation, joint task forces, and Shiprider operations governed by central authorities and domestic laws—but neither country’s law enforcement enjoys a blanket right to conduct unilateral policing in the other country; every cross‑border action requires legal authorization, host‑country control, and adherence to the terms of the bilateral agreements [1] [2] [3]. Where sources discuss proposals or political pushes to broaden those authorities, they reflect potential future changes, not present unilateral powers [8].