Written by Juan Avilez, Policy Associate for State and Local Initiatives and Raul Pinto, Deputy Legal Director
Texas’ SB4 set the tone for the national discourse around immigration enforcement. Since then, certain states have felt emboldened to create their own immigration enforcement regimes, like Iowa and Oklahoma, which enacted equally strict copycat bills.
Other states sought to strengthen the cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and immigration enforcement entities, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), through more established methods.
What are 287(g) and the Criminal Alien Program?
These bills often rely on existing federal programs like 287(g) and the Criminal Alien Program, formerly known as Secure Communities, to bolster this cooperation. Under 287(g), local law enforcement entities, like sheriff’s offices, enter into agreements with the federal government to deputize officers from the local agencies to serve as immigration officers.
Secure Communities, on the other hand, allows local law enforcement officers to share the information of individuals they detain with ICE, which then determines whether to take custody of those individuals. Both programs rely on ICE’s issuance of a “detainer,” which is a request by ICE to hold an individual beyond when they would otherwise be released so that ICE can physically take custody of them.
But close cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities is often problematic. When local law enforcement agencies begin arrests that end up in removals, immigrant communities are less likely to seek help when they become victims of crime. When immigrants don’t report crimes out of fear of deportation, it makes communities and all their residents less safe.
Studies also suggest these programs can decrease rates of school attendance for U.S. citizen children of immigrants in places where these types of laws are in place.
Where are we seeing these bills?
Despite courts across the country interpreting detainers as non-obligatory requests, states looking to raise their involvement in immigration enforcement have sought to make these requests mandatory.
In North Carolina, for example, House Bill 10 would create a process requiring state sheriffs to bring individuals subject to detainers in front of state judicial officials to justify their ongoing detention under state law. This would virtually guarantee that people subject to detainers would not be released before ICE can take them into custody. The bill ultimately failed to pass, but special sessions are being planned where this measure could be brought up.
Tennessee and Georgia’s legislatures also enacted bills bolstering local and federal immigration enforcement cooperation that mandate that local law enforcement coordinate with federal immigration officials if they suspect someone in custody is in the country without permission. South Carolina and Alabama both introduced similar measures, though they did not pass their respective legislatures.
The problem with obligatory cooperation bills
This type of legislation is ineffective in meaningfully reducing crime and is not an efficient use of scarce, local resources. Local law enforcement face dire personnel shortages. Programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities prevent local police officers from focusing on their core functions and expand their duties to serve as de facto immigration enforcement officers.
Because local law enforcement officials are often not trained in immigration enforcement—and those who are receive limited training—they can rely on stereotypes and discriminatory tactics to detain individuals suspected of being in the county without authorization.
In fact, Council research found that when local law enforcement in Ohio cooperated with Border Patrol agents at the Sandusky Bay Station, they often relied on dubious tactics, such as detention based on minor traffic violations, to arrest individuals who would often end up deported. The research further found that immigrants of color made up roughly 90% of those detained by local law enforcement.
What’s next?
Despite the prevalence of bills forcing local law enforcement into compliance with 287(g) and Secure Communities policies, some states have taken steps to oppose them.
Last year, Colorado passed legislation preventing local government involvement in immigration detention. Earlier this month, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the state’s law and held that local law enforcement cannot detain individuals solely on the basis of ICE detainers.
Some lawmakers tout these types of bills as a way to address recent migrant arrivals—but the reality is, they function more as a political stunt rather than effective public policy.
As the prevalence of states taking immigration enforcement into their own hands increases, it’s important to reiterate the truth of these policies: they are a harmful, ineffective, and costly way to try to address crime. These bills sow distrust among immigrant communities and enact a burden on local law enforcement.
FILED UNDER: 287(g), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, secure communities