In Austin, Tx., Sept. 20, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers shot and seriously wounded another individual in a traffic stop, causing him to be partially paralyzed. The incident — whose circumstances remain under investigation — is just one more in the slew of negative interactions that ICE has had with the American public. Under the Trump administration, ICE has been unprecedentedly aggressive and omnipresent, leading to national debates over the scope and conduct of federal agents in communities. At the center of those debates lie agreements established under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As formal partnerships between ICE and state or local law enforcement agencies, the 287(g) agreements allow local police officers to collaborate with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws after completing training by ICE officials. However, as the number of 287(g) agreements has multiplied nationwide under the Trump Administration, so has the opposition to them — opponents argue that these agreements promote racial profiling and destroy immigrant trust in law enforcement.
Yet, there is a case for these agreements — one that must be separated from reflexive opposition to an ICE-adjacent mechanism just because of ICE’s recent politicization. At their core, 287(g) agreements must be seen as a tool of local authority in allowing states to decide how immigration enforcement works within their communities.
If carefully designed, supervised and used, agreements have the potential to reclaim state sovereignty against expanding federal power. Legally, ICE is allowed to make unannounced visits to homes and workplaces or question an individual in public places about their immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. That authority has been used liberally under the Trump administration, leading to individuals, whether immigrant or citizen, being confronted on bikes, on K-12 school grounds, in restaurants and beyond. But by signing a 287(g) agreement, local officials, with more intimate knowledge of their community and its needs, have the individual ability to mostly replace ICE in immigration enforcement — meaning that immigration enforcement can take a more pragmatic, humanistic tenor.
Furthermore, signing a 287(g) cannot be understood as permanent — localities can scale back or terminate their agreements at any point. To recognize this caveat, it is imperative to know that 287(g) agreements are not new tactics being used by the Trump administration or by ICE for illicit behavior — the agreements have legal precedent and were established in 1996. Although the number of active agreements has just recently surged, they have also been used in the past for counterterrorism efforts following Sept. 11, 2001. This history exemplifies that the existence of 287(g) agreements must be distinguished from the scope of authority exercised through them under the Trump administration. The federally granted power through these agreements gives local officials a structural basis of power, instead of leaving the contours of federal enforcement entirely out of the locality’s influence.
Take Virginia’s recent experience and discourse surrounding its 287(g) agreements, for example. After former Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration expanded participation in 287(g) programs, Virginia passed legislation restricting state and local agencies’ participation in immigration enforcement efforts with the federal government. Although the federal government did challenge portions of Virginia’s restrictions, and litigation is still ongoing, the dispute illustrates an important distinction. Participation in 287(g) agreements does not permanently define the state’s role in immigration enforcement. Rather, they demonstrate a negotiated delegation of authority whose boundaries remain subject to political, legislative and legal challenge. An agreement’s terms can be amended in writing with mutual approval, terminated by one party or become conditional from state legislative action. Using that sovereign state power to alter the terms, conditions and timelines of these agreements is an exercise of state authority that should be promoted instead of overlooked.
Despite these salient points, the main concerns that exist with the 287(g) program are that the agreements sow distrust in communities and promote racial profiling. These concerns manifest in officer discretion and worries over unlawful stops during everyday policing motivated by ethnicity, accent or race. While those worries certainly can manifest in these agreements, it is crucial that different types of agreements are considered in context. Three completely distinct models of 287(g) agreements exist — the Task Force Model, the Jail Enforcement Model and the Warrant Service Officer Model. Most people assume the TFM makes up a general 287(g) agreement. The TFM allows local police officers to proactively question and arrest individuals for immigration violations outside of jails and during daily policing. This model does have the potential to sow distrust if used incorrectly. However, individual municipalities and states can choose whatever model they want. JEM and WSO focus on individuals already booked into local police custody for state or local charges. From there, law enforcement officials can identify inmates' immigration status and begin deportation paperwork. Given that JEM and WSO involve only individuals who have already been arrested, charged with a crime and had their immigration status confirmed, that authority is logical and would not include profiling as the basis for immigration enforcement.
I do not condone the actions of ICE under the current administration. I do not condone federal agents cowardly hiding behind face masks while hunting individuals down. I do not condone racial profiling that traumatically rips families apart. However, I do believe that the 287(g) agreements offer states and local governments an avenue for power that must be exercised. If state governments use 287(g) agreements correctly, they can stop some of ICE’s worst abuses in their own communities. Instead of outright banning agreements just to make a political stance against Trump, state legislatures must focus on defining clear limits for these agreements and using them effectively as tools for local-federal cooperation.
ICE is not going away. 287(g) agreements are not, either. But the conversation cannot be focused on whether that authority should exist. It must be focused on who gets to define its boundaries.
Lucy Duttenhofer is a senior associate opinion editor for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Lucy Duttenhofer is a senior associate opinion editor for the opinion desk. She is a third-year Batten student majoring in Public Policy and Leadership and minoring in Spanish. She is from Summit, N.J., and she frequently writes about education policy and local and national politics.
Read More
YOUNIS: University networks protect rapists
By Ayat Younis | YesterdayWhen a university's response to sexual violence is limited, who is the institution actually protecting?
HAWKINS: The Cornell sexual assault scandal showcases the importance of student journalism
By Joshua Hawkins | 2 days agoWhile the Cornell University administration faltered, it was the students who rose to the occasion.
CARON: Political cynicism is complacency, not productivity
By Jenna Caron | 2 days agoDuring elections, our agency is only gone if we allow it to be.
