A History of Controversy: The 287(g) Program in Arizona

A growing reluctance among Arizona law enforcement agencies to participate in a federal program granting local officers deportation authority is rooted in a contentious past. The program, known as 287(g), allows state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws. However, the legacy of its implementation in Maricopa County under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio casts a long shadow, influencing decisions across the state today.

The Trump administration significantly expanded the 287(g) program following an executive order in January 2020, calling for greater local involvement in immigration enforcement. This national recruitment drive has seen over 900 agencies join the program, but Arizona has largely resisted the trend. As of October 15th, only nine of at least 106 municipal police departments, sheriff’s offices, and county attorneys in Arizona have agreements to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in making arrests. Just four of those agreements were signed since the beginning of the year.

Understanding the 287(g) Models

ICE offers three distinct ways for local police to participate in the 287(g) program. The Jail Enforcement model limits collaboration to individuals already detained in local jails. The Warrant Service Officer model focuses on identifying immigration violations during the processing of arrest warrants. The most controversial is the Task Force Model, which empowers local officers to act as “force multipliers” during routine police duties, actively seeking out and detaining individuals for potential deportation. ICE’s 287(g) program details provide further information.

The Obama administration suspended all task force agreements in 2012 following a Department of Justice investigation that revealed discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office under Arpaio. The investigation found that deputies engaged in unlawful stops, detentions, and arrests of Latinos, violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A federal judge later ruled in 2013 that Arpaio’s office had systematically discriminated against Latinos during immigration enforcement operations.

Despite the judge’s rulings, Arpaio remains defiant. “I’ve never been guilty of anything,” he stated. “They went after me. But that’s OK. And you can tell your audience I’ll do it again.”

Current Landscape: Hesitation and Limited Participation

While some Arizona counties are cautiously exploring limited participation, the overwhelming sentiment among law enforcement leaders is one of hesitation. Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller, a Republican, recently signed a task force agreement, but emphasized that his office will only investigate immigration violations encountered during investigations into child abuse and drug crimes, explicitly ruling out participation in ICE raids. He recalls the “chaos” that ensued during Arpaio’s tenure and aims to avoid a repeat.

“We have zero intention and we will not be participating in any immigration raids or task forces. I just want to make that clear,” Miller affirmed. He also noted that financial incentives offered by ICE were not a factor in his decision.

Santa Cruz County Sheriff David Hathaway, a Democrat, goes further, deeming the program “illegal” based on previous court rulings regarding Arizona’s 2010 anti-illegal immigration law, often referred to as the “show me your papers” law. The Supreme Court struck down most provisions of that law, reinforcing the principle that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility. Arizona’s proposed ICE Act, which would have mandated local participation, was vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs earlier this year.

Sheriffs in Pima and Maricopa Counties, representing the state’s largest populations, have also expressed reservations. Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos prioritizes building trust with communities, including migrant populations, and believes that immigration enforcement is best left to federal authorities. Sheriff Nanos discusses community policing and its importance in maintaining public safety.

Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan acknowledges the past issues with the 287(g) program and remains under court oversight. However, he supports ICE’s work within local jails, viewing it as a legitimate avenue for cooperation.

Did You Know?

The debate over the 287(g) program highlights the complex relationship between local law enforcement, federal immigration policy, and community trust. As Arizona agencies navigate this landscape, the lessons learned from the past will undoubtedly shape their decisions moving forward. What role should local law enforcement play in federal immigration enforcement, and how can agencies balance security concerns with the need to build trust within diverse communities?

Frequently Asked Questions About the 287(g) Program