287G Agreement

Why are the 287(g) agreements problematic? The 287(g) agreements are designed to expand the reach of Trump`s deportation machine by incentivizing localities to do ICE`s work at their own expense. The 287(g) agreements lead to racial profiling, civil rights violations, isolation of immigrant communities, and family separation. When local authorities work with ICE, police arrest and harass Latinx residents at an increased rate, while immigrants withdraw from their communities, avoid businesses where they are required to provide their personal information, and refuse to attend public events where law enforcement agencies might be present. The amendments to Article 287(g) ProgramICE changed the default language of the 287(g) agreements. This resource highlights and explains the most important changes and provides a line-by-line comparison of old and new contracts. The 150 localities currently working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) incur high costs associated with the formal conclusion of 287(g) agreements. While many jurisdictions prefer to avoid these costs, there has been significant pressure on local and state law enforcement agencies to work with ICE and sign these agreements. The 287(g) agreements extend the responsibilities of local and state law enforcement agencies to immigration law enforcement agencies. Jurisdictions must also fund the associated training and detention costs, and consider the potential for legal liability associated with paragraph 287(g) agreements.

Here, we`ll take a closer look at the cost of 287(g) agreements and their impact on local jurisdictions. The map below shows the total of the 148 jurisdictions across the country that currently have 287(g) agreements under the Prison Enforcement Officer and Warrant Officer models. It also shows some of the administrations that have ended these programs. For example, the Maricopa County Sheriff`s Office in Arizona had a budget deficit of $1.3 million in 2008, entirely due to overtime related to its 287(g) agreement. The 287(g) deal in Gwinnett County, Georgia, cost taxpayers up to $3.7 million a year over eight years, which would have accounted for 5 percent of the sheriff`s total budget in 2012. Denver`s 287(g) program costs taxpayers up to $1.5 million a year, about the amount spent on the entire domestic violence unit. States and local jurisdictions should have the power to consider alternatives to the 287 (g) agreements that would prevent and combat crime without alienating immigrant communities and endangering public safety. Places that choose alternatives to the 287(g) agreements should not be penalized or pressured to comply with the wishes of the current government on a partisan issue. The GAO was asked to review ICE`s management and oversight of the program. This report examines (1) the extent to which ECI has developed performance targets and measures to evaluate the 287(g) program; (2) how ICE determines eligibility to participate in the 287(g) program and takes into account program resources; and (3) how AIC monitors compliance with 287(g) participants and addresses non-compliance.

The GAO reviewed AIC policies and documentation and interviewed officials at AIC headquarters and field offices. The GAO also surveyed 11 SELECTED LEAs based on 287(g) agreement type, duration of ownership, and asset type (e.B. state or local). Although not generalizable, the information collected by the selected LEAs provided an overview of 287(g) program operations and monitoring of program participants. The GAO analyzed data on 287(g) inspection results and complaints from fiscal years 2015 to 2020. In June 2020, Prince William County terminated a decades-long 287(g) deal with ICE, largely due to the impact on the local budget, daily operating costs, and maintenance costs. What is 287(g)?287(g) is a program that allows state and local authorities to act as immigration officers. Under section 287(g), ICE enters into an agreement with a state or local agency – most often a county sheriff who operates a local jail – and that agreement delegates certain immigration agencies to specific officials within the local agency.

These agreements are also referred to as “287(g) contracts” or “memoranda of understanding” (memorandum of understanding). The program takes its name from paragraph 287(g) of the Immigration and Citizenship Act. In addition to the cost of detention, the premises also assume legal responsibility for those detained in their local prisons. ICE detainees are requests to detain people in a local prison or prison beyond their otherwise legal detention period. Due to the different decisions from one state to another regarding the length of detention, places with 287(g) agreements may break the law if they comply with an ice prisoner. Local law enforcement could be held accountable if the detainee is detained for more than 48 hours – whether or not the jurisdiction complies with an ICE detainee – or if the detainee is accidentally placed on a citizen. .