Delegation and Divergence: 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement
Highlights
A study of the 287(g) program found that local police often used their delegated immigration powers to hold people for minor offenses, raising concerns about racial profiling.
- The 287(g) program, active in 72 places in 2011, allows local police to check immigration status, hold people for ICE, and start deportation. How it was used differed greatly from one jurisdiction to another.
- In 2010, about half of those held for ICE under 287(g) agreements had a serious criminal record, while the rest were stopped for misdemeanors or traffic offenses. The broadest use of 287(g) was in the Southeast.
- Changes DHS made to 287(g) in 2009 did little to shift local enforcement priorities, and who local police detain left room for racial profiling and arrests made as a pretext.
- The authors urged ICE to reserve detainers for people convicted of serious crimes, investigate racial profiling, and compare the program’s costs and benefits with Secure Communities.
This report finds that the Section 287(g) program of the Immigration and Nationality Act—which permits the federal government to delegate immigration enforcement powers to state and local officers—is not targeted primarily at serious offenders, despite statements by administration officials. In assessing the implementation, enforcement outcomes, costs, and community impacts of the 287(g) program, the report finds that about half of 287(g) activity involves noncitizens arrested for misdemeanors and traffic offenses. The program authorizes screenings for immigration status, issuing detainers to hold people on immigration violations and generating the charges that begin the process of their removal from the United States.
Currently, the statutory language of section 287(g), combined with the Obama administration’s statements and guidelines, and implementation practices by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allow jurisdictions to operate the 287(g) program in fundamentally different ways across the country. Still, formal changes unveiled by ICE in 2009 have not substantially changed program priorities, operations, outcomes, or community impacts.
The report recommends that ICE seek to ensure the program functions consistently across jurisdictions and reconfirm the program is intended to target primarily serious criminals or people who have prior criminal convictions, represent a threat to national security, or have prior removal orders.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Summary of Research Questions and Methodology
III. History and Overview of the Program
A. Brief History of the 287(g) Program
B. Overview of the 287(g) Program as It Currently Operates
C. The 287(g) Program Compared to Other ICE Partnerships
IV. Study Findings
A. 287(g) Program Outcomes
B. Program Goals and Motivations
C. Program Implementation
D. Program Accountability
E. Immigrant Community Impacts and Perceptions
V. Conclusions and Recommendations
About the U.S. Immigration Policy Program
The U.S. Immigration Policy Program provides analysis of U.S. immigration pathways, the impacts of enforcement and other policies, and the characteristics of immigrant populations.
Related Content
