Write an email, make a phone call, or write a letter to the editor

Deputies assigned to 287(g) must complete ICE-approved training. This requires travel, overtime, and backfill staffing. While ICE provides the curriculum, local agencies bear the associated personnel and logistical costs. These expenses are ongoing due to staff turnover and recertification.

When deputies are diverted to immigration enforcement duties, departments must pay overtime or hire additional staff to maintain minimum jail staffing levels. These costs can accumulate quickly, especially in smaller or understaffed facilities. Overtime spending often exceeds initial budget projections.

  The Laken Riley Act expanded immigration detention by mandating the indefinite detention of certain noncitizens accused, not convicted, of even very minor crimes. This, ICE estimates will cost $86 billion over just three years.

287(g) participation has been linked to civil rights lawsuits alleging unlawful detention, profiling, or constitutional violations. Even when cases are dismissed, legal defense costs can be substantial. Settlements or judgments can significantly impact county budgets.

  Counties may face increased insurance premiums or risk pool assessments due to heightened exposure to civil rights claims. Some insurers view immigration enforcement partnerships as higher risk. These cost increases affect not only the sheriff’s department but the entire county.

When community members avoid law enforcement, crimes go unreported and cases become harder to solve. This inefficiency increases investigative costs and strains limited resources. Over time, the cost of reactive policing rises compared to preventive approaches.

287(g) requires extensive documentation, data sharing, audits, and coordination with ICE. These administrative tasks require staff time that is rarely reimbursed. Departments may need to hire or reassign personnel to manage compliance.

 Participation may require upgrades to jail management systems, secure data access, and compatibility with federal databases. Maintenance, licensing, and cybersecurity costs add to long-term financial obligations. These systems often outlast the agreement itself. 

   ICE does not guarantee reimbursement for costs incurred under 287(g). Counties often assume expenses with no clear mechanism for recovery. Budget planning becomes difficult when federal support is discretionary or inconsistent.

  Time spent on immigration enforcement is time not spent on local priorities such as violence prevention, substance abuse response, or reentry programming. The financial impact of foregone  

287(g) programs often generate increased public scrutiny, leading to higher volumes of open records requests, audits, and oversight activities. Responding to these requests requires legal and administrative staff time. These transparency costs are ongoing and unfunded.  

The Bucks County Pensylvania Sheriff's Department ended their ICE agreement in part because the agreement produced enough fear in the community, people were to afraid to appear in court.

 When a Sheriff’s Department, or other Law Enforcement Agency collaborates with ICE under 287(g), immigrant communities have been shown to develop fears that any contact with law enforcement could lead to immigration consequences. This discourages people from reporting crimes, serving as witnesses, or seeking help during emergencies. Reduced cooperation undermines overall public safety and makes it harder to prevent and solve crimes. 

Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and labor exploitation may avoid calling law enforcement or cooperating with prosecutors if they believe jail intake could trigger ICE involvement. This allows perpetrators to remain at large and increases the risk they will victimize others in the community. Public safety suffers when crimes go unreported and unprosecuted.

  Although 287(g) is formally limited to the jail environment, its presence can influence earlier enforcement decisions, including who is stopped, arrested, or booked into jail. This can create pressure—real or perceived—to target individuals based on race, language, or national origin. Profiling erodes legitimacy and can expose the department to legal and civil rights challenges.

  Designating certain deputies as ICE partners can create tension within the jail, particularly among detainees who fear deportation. This fear can escalate stress, mental health crises, and resistance to jail staff, increasing the risk of conflict or self-harm. Managing immigration enforcement responsibilities can distract from core jail safety and custodial duties. 

   Implementing 287(g) requires staff time, training, supervision, and administrative coordination with ICE. These demands can divert attention and resources away from crime prevention, investigations, and community policing. Over time, this can weaken the department’s ability to address local safety priorities effectively. 

 The jail enforcement model can expose individuals to immigration consequences based solely on arrest, not guilt. This undermines the moral principle that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Using jail intake as a gateway to deportation treats accusation as punishment. 

  Individuals may be questioned about immigration status without access to counsel or clear understanding of their rights. Immigration proceedings lack many of the constitutional safeguards present in criminal court. This raises serious concerns under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

 Holding individuals on ICE detainers without a judicial warrant can amount to unlawful seizure. Multiple federal courts have found such detentions constitutionally suspect. Counties risk participating in violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable detention.

   287(g) programs disproportionately impact people of color and those with limited English proficiency. Even when policies are race-neutral on paper, outcomes often reflect unequal treatment. This raises Equal Protection concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment and offends basic principles of fairness. 

When victims fear deportation, they are less likely to seek help or pursue justice. This allows harm to continue unchecked and places the burden on survivors rather than perpetrators. A system that silences victims fails a basic moral test.

Local law enforcement is entrusted with protecting communities, not enforcing civil immigration law. Merging these roles compromises the ethical foundation of community policing. It transforms sheriffs from guardians of public safety into extensions of federal immigration control.

Jail is an inherently coercive environment, making any questioning about immigration status ethically fraught. Individuals may feel compelled to answer without understanding the consequences. Using confinement as leverage violates principles of dignity and voluntary consent.

 Low-level or nonviolent arrests can trigger life-altering outcomes such as family separation or exile. The punishment imposed through immigration enforcement far exceeds the alleged offense. This lack of proportionality conflicts with fundamental moral reasoning. 

   When communities perceive the justice system as a pathway to deportation, access to courts becomes unequal. This chills participation by witnesses, jurors, and litigants. A justice system that only works safely for some is constitutionally and morally deficient.

    287(g) programs can function as a form of collective punishment, affecting families and entire communities rather than just individuals. Children, spouses, and elders bear consequences for arrests they did not commit. Collective punishment violates deeply held moral norms and democratic values.