Click here to access articles and links to organizations which generally support open borders and immigration rights as well as those that support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and strong border enforcement.
Statutory and Regulatory
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html
8 USC 1101
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-101.html#0-0-0-164
3 USC 301
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2014-title3/USCODE-2014-title3-chap4-sec301
Final Rule INA Regulation
8 CFR 274a
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-28757.html
Executive Actions
Obama Administration:
Secretary Napolitano Announces New Agreement for State and Local Immigration Enforcement Partnerships & Adds 11 New Agreements (2009)
Obama Administration announces “standardization” of MOAs.
Trump Administration:
Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (2017)
Trump Administration directs executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States, including in sanctuary cities.
Fact Sheets and Government Reports
ICE Fact Sheet:
Updated Facts on ICE’s 287(g) Program
https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/287g-reform
ICE has implemented comprehensive guidelines for ICE field offices that supervise 287(g) partnerships; requires 287(g) officers to maintain comprehensive alien arrest, detention, and removal data; strengthened the 287(g) basic training course and created a new refresher training course; deployed additional supervisors to the field to ensure greater oversight over 287(g) operations; and established an Internal Advisory Committee. Focus on criminal aliens.
ICE 287(g) Information Page:
Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act
Main 287(g) page, including currently active MOAs.
ICE Tip Line:
Homeland Security Investigations Tip Line: 866-DHS-2-ICE
Individuals can report suspicious criminal activity to the ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Tip Line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Includes terrorism, cyber crimes, drug smuggling, money laundering, human trafficking/smuggling, human rights violators, import/export violations, child pornography/exploitation, document and benefit fraud, gang-related crimes, intellectual property rights violations, worksite enforcement.
ICE Criminal Alien Program (formerly ACCESS program):
Criminal Alien Program
https://www.ice.gov/criminal-alien-program
The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) provides direction and support in the biometric and biographic identification, arrest, and removal of priority aliens who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local prisons and jails, as well as at-large criminal aliens that have circumvented identification.
ICE Border Enforcement Security Task Force (formerly ACCESS program):
Border Enforcement Security Task Force
The BEST investigative model is a comprehensive response to the growing threat to border security, public safety and national security. BESTs eliminate the barriers between federal and local investigations (access to both federal and state prosecutors) and close the gap with international partners in multinational criminal investigations.
ICE Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (formerly ACCESS program):
Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force
https://www.ice.gov/identity-benefit-fraud
ICE places a high priority on investigating document and benefit fraud. These types of fraud pose a severe threat to national security and public safety because they create a vulnerability that may enable terrorists, other criminals and illegal aliens to gain entry to and remain in the United States.
ICE Operation Predator (formerly ACCESS program):
Operation Predator - Targeting child exploitation and sexual crimes
https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/predator
Under Operation Predator, the agency's flagship initiative targeting child sex predators, ICE has made more than 8,000 criminal arrests since 2003.
ICE Law Enforcement Support Center (formerly ACCESS program):
Law Enforcement Support Center
The center is a single national point of contact that provides timely immigration status, identity information, and real-time assistance to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies on aliens suspected, arrested, or convicted of criminal activity.
ICE Operation Firewall (formerly ACCESS program):
Operation Firewallhttps://www.ice.gov/factsheets/firewall
Operation Firewall is a comprehensive operation targeting criminal organizations involved in the smuggling of large quantities of U.S. currency.
Congressional Research Report:
Interior Immigration Enforcement: Criminal Alien Programs (2016)https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44627.pdf
Describes enforcement levels by program, the level of appropriations for different criminal alien programs, and the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in immigration enforcement.
Neutral 287(g) Articles
Law Review Article:
From 287(g) to SB 1070: The Decline of the Federal Immigration Partnership and the Rise of State-Level Immigration Enforcement (2010)
http://arizonalawreview.org/michaud/
The Obama administration whittled down the 287(g) program to such an extent that it compelled states and communities to take immigration enforcement into their own hands.
Article in Baltimore Sun:
Frederick County opts to help federal immigration officials (2017)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-frederick-immigration-20170319-story.html
Primarily describes the 287(g) program in Frederick County, Maryland. Harford County's jail is preparing to participate in the 287(g) program this year. Anne Arundel County has applied to participate, as well. A bill in Annapolis would have barred local and state governments from using their resources to assist immigration officials, but it was watered down. The revised measure allows jail programs to continue, though officials could hold people only for immigration reasons if a judge has signed a warrant. Even with that change, Gov. Larry Hogan says he will veto because not cooperating with federal authorities "is a big part of the problem" when it comes to illegal immigration.
Article in USA Today:
Undocumented immigrant population in U.S. stays flat for eighth straight year (2017)https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/undocumented-immigrant-population-united-states/100877164/
After nearly two decades of growth in immigration through the 1990s and 2000s, the rate has plateaued. The improvement of the Mexican economy, the federal government’s additions to border security, and a shift in the demographics of Latin America all contributed.
Article in Fundera Ledger:
How New I-9 Form Changes Will Affect Employers (and How to Make Sure You Don’t Land in Legal Trouble) (2018)
https://www.fundera.com/blog/new-i-9-form-changes
2018 changes in I-9 enforcement; how to comply; Panda Express’s $400,000 fine.
Article in FiveThirtyEight:
While some communities become sanctuaries, others are happy to help with Trump’s immigration crackdown (2017)
Balanced history of 287(g); what proponents say vs. what opponents say.
Published by Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force:
A Path to Public Safety: Background on Section 287(g) Agreements (2017).
Between 2006 and 2015, more than 400,000 deportable persons were identified through 287(g) programs. However, more than half of these persons were arrested for minor traffic violations or low-level misdemeanors. Some counties have spent tremendous amounts of money on salaries implementing 287(g).
Pro-287(g) Articles
Published by Center for Immigration Studies (CIS):
The 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and Homeland (2009)
ttps://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,1123-vaughan.shtm
287(g) program is major factor in reduced local crime rates, smaller inmate populations, and lower criminal justice costs. 287(g) is cost-effective and a force multiplier. The origins of the “chilling effect” theory (illegals not reporting crime for fear of being deported) are unclear, but hard evidence of the phenomenon is non-existent. As reported in a GAO study, to date there have been no substantiated cases of racial profiling or abuse of immigration authority in any 287(g) location. 287(g) training does emphasize how to avoid racial profiling.
State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: A Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists (2004)
https://cis.org/State-and-Local-Authority-Enforce-Immigration-Law
Legal analysis from law professor: State and local police possess substantial inherent authority to make immigration arrests, in addition to the delegated powers available through Section 287(g). The potential for closer cooperation with state and local law enforcement has not been fully exploited. Consequently, there has been a cost in the national security of the United States.
Published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP):
Police Chiefs Guide to Immigration Issues (2007)
www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/PoliceChiefsGuidetoImmigration.pdf
Page 25-27: Initiatives under 287(g) have had a successful impact on illegal immigration and have garnered leads, arrests, and convictions for a variety of federal and state violations.
Published by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):
The Role of State & Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies (2016)
Congress designed immigration law with state and local assistance in mind. States and localities do not have to turn a blind eye to immigration violations simply because it is a federal issue.
President Obama’s Record of Dismantling Immigration Enforcement (2014)
https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Obama_Enforcement_Report.pdf
Timeline of the Obama Administration’s impact on immigration enforcement.
Published by the Heritage Foundation:
Section 287(g) is the Right Answer for State and Local Immigration Enforcement (2006)
Congress should build upon 287(g) by (1) appointing a national spokesperson to promote it, (2) drafting a strategy for implementing 287(g) nationwide, (3) creating a national continuing education learning center, (4) reporting progress to Congress annually, (5) allowing states and localities to use homeland security grants to pay for 287(g), (6) providing funding to ICE for training up to 5,000 more local officers, and (7) requiring that any participating locality have a stakeholder engagement plan that briefs community and solicits comments regarding community policing.
Section 287(g): State and Local Immigration Enforcement Efforts are Working (2009).
Compares scathing GAO report on 287(g) against far different report by Davidson County Sheriff’s office, which processed 5,300 illegal aliens for removal in the course of two years. Led to 31% decline in arrests of foreign-born individuals and a 46% decline in illegal aliens committing crimes, without receiving any complaints of racial profiling. County engaged in extensive community communication/outreach efforts.
Article in the Daily Signal:
Some Cities Want to Help with Immigration Enforcement, not be Sanctuaries (2017)
http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/30/cities-want-help-immigration-enforcement-not-sanctuaries/
Eleven 287(g) MOAs have been signed since Trump took office. 287(g) is a cost-effective, force-multiplying effort that should be expanded.
Article on Foxnews.com:
Texas police agencies get some ICE powers (2017)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/31/texas-police-agencies-get-some-ice-powers.html
Describes 18 new 287(g) agreements in Texas signed in the wake of Trump’s executive order “beefing up” 287(g).
Anti-287(g) Articles
Published by Immigration Policy Center/American Immigration Council:
The 287(g) Program: A Flawed and Obsolete Method of Immigration Enforcement (2012)
www.mygreencard.com/downloads.php?file=287G_Update_December2012.pdf
287(g) results in racial profiling and is a drain on local taxpayer money. There are very few captures of violent offenders under it, and it hinders community policing. There is also a lack sufficient federal oversight.
Published by American Immigration Council:
The 287(g) Program: An Overview (2017)
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/287g-program-immigration
Program nets few criminals; results in racial profiling; and is expensive to localities.
Published by Migration Policy Institute:
A Program in Flux: New Priorities and Implementation Challenges for 287(g) (2010)
How local law enforcement agencies and ICE “operationalize” the formal terms of their MOAs determine whether they threaten civil rights protections.
Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement (2011)
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/287g-divergence.pdf
The statutory language of section 287(g), the Obama administration’s guidelines, and ICE’s implementation practices allow the 287(g) Program to operate in fundamentally different ways across the country. Study finds that 287(g) Program has more significant negative impact on immigrant communities when a jurisdiction uses a universal model, and that traffic offenders comprise a large proportion of persons channeled through the program in those areas.
Published by ACLU:
The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement Laws, by North Carolina ACLU and University of North Carolina Immigration and Human Rights Policy Clinic (2009)
The primary function of local law enforcement is to protect local communities from crime. 287(g) is not the right solution because it: (1) Marginalizes an already vulnerable population by encouraging/tolerating racial profiling, which results in harassment and isolation of the Hispanic community; (2) causes fear of law enforcement, such that immigrant communities refrain from reporting crimes, thereby compromising public safety; (3) causes economic devastation for already struggling localities, as immigrants flee and cause a loss of profits for local businesses; and (4) leads to violations of civil liberties and legal protections, thereby paving the way for future encroachments into basic fundamental freedoms. Local law enforcement may violate federal law by not complying with: (1) equal protection laws, by engaging in racial profiling and harassment on the basis of race; (2) the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by discriminating against individuals based on their race, color, or ethnicity; (3) Department of Justice Guidelines which were developed “for Federal officials to ensure an end to racial profiling in law enforcement”; (4) Federal criminal procedure law, by rushing undocumented immigrants through the system; and (5) International treaty law, by failing to timely communicate with consular officers from detainees’ countries of origin as required by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Wrongful immigration determination, detention, and deportation may result from local officers lacking expertise in complex immigration law. MOAs are often characterized by: (1) vagueness, (2) lack of notice and information about the right to file a complaint, (3) conflicts of interest in reviewing a complaint, and (4) unclear complaint resolution procedures.
Terror and Isolation in Cobb: How Unchecked Police Power under 287(g) has Torn Families Apart and Threatened Public Safety, by ACLU Georgia (2009)
287(g) agreements undermine police work because immigrant communities, who are fearful of being deported, hesitate to report crime. The Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Police Foundation have both found that community policing efforts are harmed by participation in 287(g) programs. Law enforcement agencies may reallocate limited resources towards nonviolent crimes, like driving without a license, and may thus have little money left over for combating violent crimes. There are well-documented instances of racial profiling under 287(g), and there is no meaningful check in place to ensure that local law enforcement do not abuse the program by intimidating and racially profiling immigrant communities.
ICE should end, not expand agreements with local and state law enforcement, says ACLU (2009)
287(g) lacks oversight, monitoring, or accountability mechanisms to address racial profiling and other civil rights violations.
Published by the Police Foundation:
The Role of Police: Striking a Balance between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties (2009)
Report on opinions of a series of focus groups across the country. The general consensus was that 287(g) inhibits community policing; the costs of the program outweigh its benefits; and that local law enforcement agencies should put pressure on federal government to improve border security. The groups were not in favor of 287(g) unless it applies only for criminal acts.
Published by NCLR (National Council of La Raza):
The Impact of Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the Latino Community (2010)
Elevated racial and ethnic profiling by law enforcement has created a threatening environment for all Latinos. Academic and advocacy groups that have tracked 287(g)-related incidents, showing that the majority of those arrested and deported under 287(g) were not the violent criminals or terrorists. The GAO found significant problems and gaps in oversight and management of the 287(g) program by ICE. OIG found that training programs for 287(g) officers did not prepare them completely for immigration enforcement. Further, this training does not include any requirement of language training or language competency. In a survey of 54 police chiefs, deputies, and sheriffs conducted by the Police Foundation, only nine offices said that the 287(g) program helped fight crime. The majority agreed that 287(g) agreements detract from more urgent police work. They also believed that 287(g) agreements often severely hinder the ability of police to earn the trust required to implement effective community policing.
Published by Reuters:
Police in Trump-supporting towns aid immigration officials in crackdown (2017)
Since Trump took office, 29 police departments have joined 287(g) according to the ICE. Three-quarters of the agencies that have already signed 287(g) agreements or are interested in doing so are in counties that voted for Trump in 2016, according to a Reuters analysis of electoral data.
Published by Major Cities Chiefs:
M.C.C. Immigration Committee Recommendations (2006)
(1) Without assurances that local police interaction would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the trust, communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear. (2) Calls for local police agencies to enforce immigration come with no clear statement or guarantee to provide adequate federal funding. (3) Local agencies fear that the call for local enforcement of immigration laws signals the beginning of a trend towards local police agencies being asked to enter other areas of federal enforcement. (4) Local police agencies are ill equipped in terms of training, experience and resources to delve into the complicated area of immigration enforcement. (5) Immigration civil detainers do not fall within the clear criminal enforcement authority of local police agencies and thus lay a trap for unwary officers who believe them to be valid criminal warrants or detainers. (6) Because local agencies lack clear authority to enforce immigration laws, are limited in their ability to arrest without a warrant, are prohibited from racial profiling, and lack training and experience to enforce complex federal immigration laws, it is more likely that local police agencies will face the risk of civil litigation if they chose to enforce federal immigration laws.
Published in Journal on Migration and Human Security:
Local Immigration Enforcement and Arrests of the Hispanic Population (2017)
This is an analysis of the effects of implementing 287(g) in the Sheriff’s Office in Frederick County, Maryland. The report found that overall arrests of Hispanics fell, suggesting that the Hispanic population started avoiding police interaction. The study also found data suggesting that that the Sheriff’s office redirected its attention to arrests of Hispanics after implementation of 287(g). Interesting note: 15 studies confirm that cities with more immigrants have lower crime rates.
Published by Justice Strategies:
Local Democracy on ICE: Why State and Local Governments have no Business in Federal Immigration Law Enforcement (2009)
ttps://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/JS-Democracy-On-Ice.pdf
Race, not crime, has propelled growth of 287(g). Local law enforcement is ill-equipped to enforce complex immigration law. 287(g) sets up states and localities to bail out the federal government, because it is unfunded. Civil and criminal law enforcement are incompatible enterprises; 287(g) rests on the faulty assumption that civil immigration enforcement can be seamlessly absorbed into the crime-control mission shared by criminal justice agencies. ICE has failed to manage the program adequately.
Published by the Center for American Progress:
The Negative Consequences of Entangling Local Policing and Immigration Enforcement (2017)
Strain on funds: Under the 287(g) program, participating jurisdictions perform federal immigration enforcement functions largely at their own expense. Community policing: A study found that Latinos, whether citizens or noncitizens, are “less likely to volunteer information about crimes because they fear getting caught in the web of immigration enforcement themselves or bringing unwanted attention to their family or friends.” The study also found that 70 percent of unauthorized immigrants and 44 percent of Latinos are less likely to communicate with law enforcement if they believe officers will question their immigration status or that of people they know. Crime effect: Research finds that, on average, there are 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties than in non-sanctuary counties. Summary of effects: Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) cites major areas of concern with linking local law enforcement with immigration enforcement, including (1) undermined community trust, (2) lack of resources, and (3) overly complex and time-consuming training that detracts from the public safety mission.
Published by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR):
Over-Raided, Under Seige: U.S. Immigration Laws and Enforcement Destroy the Rights of Immigrants (2008)
287(g) encourages abuse of immigrants at the hands of unscrupulous police, employers, hate groups, and others who believe that immigrants will not report crimes to avoid detection or deportation.
Published by the Cato Institute:
Trump Looking to Local Police for Immigration Enforcement (2017)
https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-looking-local-police-immigration-enforcement
Police Foundation and International Association of Police Chiefs both say that cooperation of illegal aliens is critical to crime solving, and that 287(g) impedes community policing
Published in Citylab:
The Rise of Anti-Sanctuary Cities (2017).
ttps://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/the-rise-of-anti-sanctuary-cities/517377/
Describes high costs of 287(g) in local communities, including salaries to implement the program, racial profiling litigation defense footed by taxpayers, increased 911 response times, unserved felony warrants, and increase in violent crime.
Published on CNN Money:
ICE pledges immigration crackdown on businesses. Here's what it looks like (2018)
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/15/news/economy/ice-immigration-work-site-crackdown/index.html
Increase in I-9 enforcement in 2018; negative impact on familes.
Other:
Letter to the President dated August 25, 2009, written by a large number of organizations against 287(g).
Racial profiling abuses by local law enforcement agencies working through 287(g) have compromised public safety, while doing nothing to solve the illegal immigration issue.