How have state and local 287(g) agreements changed enforcement outcomes and community trust in different jurisdictions?
Executive summary
287(g) agreements deputize local officers to perform federal immigration functions, producing measurable shifts in enforcement—larger churn of identifications, detentions and removals in jurisdictions that adopt the program—while simultaneously eroding trust in many immigrant communities and raising civil‑rights alarms [1] [2] [3]. Outcomes vary sharply: some localities point to perceived public‑safety gains and federal support, while civil‑rights groups and academic studies document racial profiling, litigation risk, and declines in cooperation with police where 287(g) is active [4] [5] [6].
1. What 287(g) actually does and why it matters to local policing
Section 287(g) authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to enter agreements that train and deputize selected state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law during their duties—models range from jail‑based screening to task forces that embed with ICE—shifting functions once exclusively federal into local hands and changing routine arrest dynamics [1] [4].
2. Enforcement outcomes: more identifications, more detentions, contested metrics of “public safety”
Agencies with active 287(g) agreements often report increased identification and transfer of noncitizens into federal removals, and DHS touts the partnerships as tools to remove dangerous criminals—statements matched by the department’s expansion and reporting of thousands of new partnerships in 2025–2026 [2] [7]. Critics note that expansion frequently targets low‑level contacts as well as people without criminal convictions, producing higher detention and deportation flows in participating counties and states that adopt mandatory participation laws [7] [8].
3. Community trust: fear, reporting declines, and racial‑profiling findings
Multiple civil‑rights organizations and peer‑reviewed research link 287(g) programs to increased racial profiling and diminished willingness among immigrants to report crimes or cooperate with police, with studies showing spillover effects into neighboring agencies and clear disproportionate impacts on Latino and Black residents [5] [6]. Local reporting and advocacy groups document that when local officers perform immigration checks, community members avoid police contact for fear of immigration consequences, an outcome public‑safety critics say undermines effective policing and public trust [3] [9].
4. Jurisdictional variation: mandates, resistors, and policy patchworks
Responses differ: some states and counties have embraced and even legislated 287(g) participation—Florida’s broad uptake and state laws like Texas’s SB8 push local agencies toward formal agreements—while other states (California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado) have passed laws that limit or forbid cooperation with ICE, producing a mosaic of enforcement that depends on local politics and law [6] [8] [10]. That variation produces starkly different on‑the‑ground outcomes: in permissive jurisdictions, municipal policing becomes an immigration gateway; in restrictive states, local trust and sanctuary policies can blunt federal reach [10].
5. Oversight, costs, and civil‑rights accountability
Independent reviews and ACLU audits have documented systemic problems—racial profiling, poor jail conditions, and civil‑rights violations—in many participating agencies, and DHS itself has at times acknowledged program shortcomings even as it seeks funding and expansion; local departments also confront training costs, liability exposure, and political fallout that some studies say outweigh operational benefits [6] [5] [3]. Proponents frame 287(g) as a targeted public‑safety tool that focuses on the “worst of the worst,” but critics caution that the line between serious criminality and immigration‑related enforcement blurs in practice and that program incentives can drive broader enforcement beyond stated priorities [2] [4].
6. Bottom line: tradeoffs, evidence gaps, and where the story goes next
The evidence shows a consistent tradeoff: jurisdictions with active 287(g) agreements typically see increased immigration enforcement outcomes as measured by identifications and transfers to ICE, but they also experience measurable harms to community trust and documented patterns of racial profiling and civil‑rights complaints; broad state mandates and rapid expansion can amplify both enforcement and harms, while places that restrict cooperation demonstrate how policy choice reshapes local policing [7] [5] [10]. Available reporting describes the contours and consequences of the program, but gaps remain in standardized, long‑term comparisons of crime‑control benefits versus social harms—an evidence gap that will determine future litigation, legislation, and whether local agencies view 287(g) as an operational asset or a political and legal liability [3] [6].