The Erosion of Local Control

President Trump’s administration dramatically expanded the reach of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by leveraging a little-known program, 287(g), which provides funding and training to state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws. While the program existed prior to Trump’s presidency, its use was limited. The current administration has not only revived it but has significantly increased its scope, now involving over 1,000 agencies nationwide. This represents a 600% increase since Trump first took office.

This expansion isn’t simply about bolstering the number of officers dedicated to immigration enforcement. It’s about fundamentally altering the relationship between federal, state, and local law enforcement, blurring the lines of authority and creating a system where local agencies are increasingly beholden to federal directives. Critics argue this represents a dangerous overreach of executive power and a potential threat to civil liberties.

Beyond the Badge: Unexpected Partners

What’s particularly alarming is the broadening definition of who is being enlisted in this effort. In Florida, for example, 287(g) agreements now include the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection law enforcement division, the Gaming Control Commission, and the Department of Lottery Services. Similar partnerships have emerged in Louisiana and Virginia, with wildlife commissions also participating in immigration enforcement. Even university police forces in Florida are now involved.

“This is a common tactic,” explains Charis Kubrin, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, specializing in immigration and crime. “There’s this idea that we’re going to get local officials – not just police officers, but nurses, teachers, and other public officials – involved in enforcing immigration laws.” This broad recruitment raises serious concerns about the scope of immigration enforcement and the potential for misuse of authority.

The Myth of the Immigrant Crime Wave

The justification for this aggressive expansion of enforcement powers often relies on the unsubstantiated claim of an “immigrant crime wave.” However, research consistently demonstrates that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. As Kubrin points out, “The research is pretty unequivocal that these policies have no impact on public safety whatsoever.” The foundational assumption of widespread immigrant criminality is demonstrably false.

Financial Incentives and Political Pressure

The surge in 287(g) agreements is driven by a combination of financial incentives and political pressure. The Department of Homeland Security now offers “performance awards” and full reimbursement for the salaries and benefits of 287(g) officers, including overtime. ICE is also offering signing bonuses of up to $50,000 and student loan forgiveness to attract new recruits, alongside targeted advertising campaigns in a dozen cities.

Furthermore, several Republican governors have actively pressured local sheriffs to cooperate with ICE, even resorting to lawsuits against those who refused. This political pressure underscores the extent to which immigration enforcement has become a politically charged issue, with local officials caught in the crossfire.

A National Police Force in the Making?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warns that this expansion of ICE partnerships is part of a larger project to create a national police force under the direct command of the president. Naureen Shah, who leads the ACLU’s policy and advocacy work on immigration, explains, “Their larger project is to blur the lines between different law enforcement agencies in the military and create one national police force that is essentially under the command of the president.”

This concern is amplified by the administration’s recent deployment of over 35,000 troops to cities across the country and a rambling address to military leaders suggesting the use of American cities as training grounds for military operations. A federal judge recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles amounted to using the troops as his own personal police force.

Do you believe the expansion of 287(g) agreements represents a legitimate effort to enhance public safety, or a dangerous overreach of federal power? What safeguards should be put in place to protect civil liberties in the context of increased immigration enforcement?

The expansion of federal control over local law enforcement is not limited to police agencies. The administration is actively seeking partnerships with a wide range of state agencies, including those responsible for wildlife management, environmental protection, gaming regulation, and even lottery services. This broad recruitment reflects a deliberate strategy to enlist local officials outside of traditional law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws.

This trend echoes tactics employed in the past, such as Arizona’s controversial S.B. 1070, which allowed state and local law enforcement to question individuals about their immigration status. Kubrin expresses concern about the potential for this trend to extend even further, potentially requiring medical officials and teachers to participate in immigration enforcement.

Frequently Asked Questions