Fact check: What is the difference between ICE authority and local police authority regarding ID requests?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there are significant differences between ICE authority and local police authority regarding ID requests, though the sources don't directly address ID request protocols specifically.

ICE Authority:

• ICE operates as a federal agency with immigration enforcement authority nationwide
• ICE can delegate specific immigration functions to state and local law enforcement through the 287(g) program ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• Under this program, local officers can be deputized to perform specific immigration officer functions under the direction and oversight of ICE ^[3]

Local Police Authority:

• Local police authority varies significantly by state regarding ID requests
• In California, you cannot be arrested for refusing to provide identification to a police officer when detained, as there is no stop and identify statute in the state ^[4]
• Local police can partner with ICE under different models including the Task Force Model, Jail Enforcement Model, and Warrant Service Officer Model ^[2]

Collaborative Authority:

• Idaho State Police has partnered with ICE under the 287(g) program, enabling them to transport individuals convicted of crimes who lack legal authorization to ICE detention centers ^[1]
• The number of participants in the 287(g) program has more than doubled during the first months of President Donald Trump's second term ^[2]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• State-by-state variation: The analyses reveal that ID request authority varies dramatically by state, with some states like California having no "stop and identify" statutes ^[4]
• The 287(g) program's expansion: The significant increase in local-federal cooperation under recent policy changes, which more than doubled participation in the 287(g) program ^[2]
• Different enforcement models: The analyses show there are multiple ways local police can work with ICE, including task force models and jail enforcement models, each with different authority levels ^{[2] [3]}
• Resource allocation impacts: The focus on immigration enforcement has led to shifts in resources, with ICE and other federal agencies working together on immigration-related cases, potentially affecting other law enforcement priorities ^[5]

Who benefits from different narratives:

• Federal immigration enforcement agencies benefit from expanded local cooperation through programs like 287(g)
• Local law enforcement agencies may benefit from federal funding and resources through these partnerships
• Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU benefit from highlighting state-level protections against ID requirements

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it oversimplifies a complex legal landscape by assuming uniform authority differences. The question fails to acknowledge:

• Geographic variation: Authority differs significantly between states and jurisdictions
• Program-specific delegation: The 287(g) program creates hybrid authority situations where local police can exercise federal immigration powers ^[3]
• Evolving policy landscape: Recent policy changes have dramatically expanded the scope of local-federal cooperation ^[2]

The analyses reveal that the relationship between ICE and local police authority is not a simple binary distinction but rather a complex web of federal programs, state laws, and local partnerships that varies significantly across jurisdictions and has been rapidly evolving under recent administrative changes.