What is ina 287?
Executive summary
INA §287 is a cluster of statutory provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that define the substantive powers of immigration officers—ranging from interrogation, arrest, warrantless stops near the border, and administrative procedures—to a distinct delegation mechanism, 287(g), which authorizes ICE to deputize state and local officers to carry out specified federal immigration functions under federal supervision [1] [2] [3].
1. What the statute is on its face: powers and procedures
Section 287 of the INA (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1357 and implemented in federal regulations) lays out core authorities of immigration officers, including the power to interrogate and administer oaths, to investigate and take evidence on matters relevant to immigration, to conduct certain warrantless arrests and border patrol actions, and to detain or arrest noncitizens under specified circumstances—authorities that have been carried forward in implementing regulations such as 8 C.F.R. §287.5 [1] [2] [4].
2. The distinct 287(g) delegation: deputizing local police
A separate and politically prominent piece is 287(g), added by the 1996 IIRIRA, which authorizes the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to enter memoranda of agreement with state and local law enforcement agencies to delegate specific immigration enforcement functions—after training and under ICE supervision—effectively deputizing local officers to perform certain federal immigration duties [3] [5] [6].
3. How the program has evolved and been managed
Implementations of 287(g) have shifted over time: the first agreements began in the early 2000s, participation peaked around 2011 and then declined during the Obama years, and the program’s footprint expanded again under executive direction in later administrations, with ICE describing different operational models (jail-based screening versus task-force models) and offering formal guidance and MOAs to localities [3] [6] [5] [7].
4. Criticisms, legal findings, and community impacts
Independent groups and some federal reviews have criticized 287(g) for diverting local resources, producing outcomes that did not consistently prioritize serious criminals, and harming trust between police and immigrant communities; the Justice Department has found instances where some localities used delegated authority to engage in patterns or practices of constitutional violations, and advocacy organizations have documented community harms and costs attributed to the program [8] [6] [7].
5. Limits, oversight, and legal context
Agreements under 287(g) are bounded by the text of the INA, the terms of the MOA, and DHS oversight; they may be time-limited or terminated by either party, and regulatory provisions (including those governing arrests and border authority) remain applicable—meaning delegated officers operate within a statute-and-regulation framework rather than open-ended law-enforcement immunity [9] [6] [2].
6. Political and practical stakes: why 287 matters now
The statute and the delegation mechanism intersect with larger political and local governance incentives—some state lawmakers have pushed to require or encourage MOAs, administrations have promoted expansion or contraction of the program by executive order, and local officials weigh training costs, federal funding, and political signaling when deciding to join—so 287 serves not only as technical immigration law but as a lever in broader debates over federalism, policing, and immigration enforcement priorities [5] [10] [3].
Exact contours of any particular 287 authority or agreement depend on the cited statutory text, the ICE MOA in force, and contemporaneous DHS policy; reporting here relies on statutory summaries, ICE materials, Congressional Research Service analysis, regulatory text, and advocacy fact sheets cited above [1] [5] [3] [2] [6]. Where specific local agreements or litigation outcomes are relevant, those details require direct examination of the MOAs and case records, which are beyond the scope of this summary [6] [7].