Fact check: What are the arguments for and against local law enforcement cooperating with ICE on immigration enforcement?

1. Why some chiefs and sheriffs say partnering with ICE makes operations smoother and safer

Local officials supporting partnerships describe practical benefits: trained local deputies can assist ICE in identifying and detaining noncitizens with criminal histories, and formal agreements are said to streamline transfer processes and reduce administrative friction. ICE’s 2025 annual report highlights the use of public‑safety tools such as detainers and collaborative arrests to target individuals it deems threats to public safety and national security, framing cooperation as integral to executing its mandate ^[1]. Proponents emphasize that local participation provides access to federal resources and databases, enabling officers to act on immigration warrants discovered during routine policing, a point reinforced by later reporting that hundreds of thousands of immigration arrest warrants were added to a national database used by local police ^{[5] [3]}.

2. Why advocates and civil‑liberties groups warn of profiling and eroded trust

Civil‑liberties groups, local immigrant advocates, and some policing critics argue that embedding immigration enforcement in day‑to‑day policing creates incentives for racial and ethnic profiling, deterring victims and witnesses from interacting with law enforcement and thereby undermining public safety. Reporting from November 2025 captures ACLU of New Hampshire’s concerns about cruelty and conditions in federal detention and frames 287(g)-style cooperation as undoing community policing gains while imposing moral and logistical costs on local jurisdictions ^{[4] [2]}. These groups point to the chilling effect when local officers become de facto immigration agents, discouraging reporting of crimes and cooperation that policing depends on.

3. The legal and financial friction local governments face when they sign on

Legal experts and several local officials have signaled liability and cost risks tied to detainers and cooperation agreements: civil‑detainer practices lack the procedural safeguards of criminal arrest warrants, exposing jurisdictions to litigation when detainers are executed without probable cause, and participation can force departments to absorb detention and transportation costs. Local advocates documented in November 2025 argue that 287(g) and similar programs carry direct budgetary consequences and potential lawsuits, while increased use of ICE flags in local databases raises operational and legal complexity for agencies juggling public‑safety duties with federal immigration priorities ^{[2] [5]}.

4. How expanded federal databases are changing local awareness and action

Reporting from January 2026 explains that the federal government added hundreds of thousands of immigration arrest warrants into databases commonly queried by local police, significantly increasing the chance that routine stops will surface ICE “wants.” That change makes cooperation more likely in practice because local officers are now more frequently alerted to immigration interests during everyday policing, altering the operational landscape regardless of formal local policy choices ^{[3] [5]}. This technological expansion raises questions about the accuracy of flags, the training provided to officers on civil versus criminal warrants, and the downstream impact on detention and removal rates.

5. Human‑rights and detention‑condition concerns that reshape the debate

Beyond procedural critiques, civil‑liberties advocates have foregrounded conditions inside federal detention facilities and the human costs of expanded enforcement, citing outrage over reported cruelty and pointing to specific facilities where ICE holds detainees ^[4]. These concerns strengthen arguments against local cooperation not only on constitutional or fiscal grounds but on humanitarian and reputational bases: local leaders weigh whether facilitating transfers to ICE aligns with community values and whether participation implicates them in treatment and care issues they cannot control.

6. Political context: enforcement priorities and institutional shifts that matter

The broader federal enforcement posture influences local decisions: analyses note that during periods when ICE has outsized influence over immigration agencies, enforcement actions intensify, including arrests at USCIS offices and immigration courts, creating a climate where local cooperation can produce sweeping effects beyond discrete public‑safety cases ^[6]. This political context matters because local leaders choose cooperation amid shifting federal priorities; agreements entered when a hardline federal stance prevails may yield different outcomes than those signed under a less enforcement‑focused administration.

7. Bottom line for jurisdictions weighing cooperation: tradeoffs, transparency, and oversight

Jurisdictions face a clear tradeoff: cooperating can enhance federal reach into perceived threats and provide operational ease, while also carrying risks to civil liberties, community trust, budgets, and legal exposure. The recent stream of reporting through late 2025 and early 2026 underscores the need for transparent local debates, careful legal review, and oversight mechanisms to limit profiling, ensure constitutional safeguards, and clarify cost responsibilities when partnerships are considered ^{[2] [5]}.