The morning of September 10, Plymouth County became the second Massachusetts location to dissolve its partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The 287(g) program, under which the Plymouth County Sheriff had a signed agreement with ICE, allows officers at the state level to carry out immigration enforcement as an extension of the federal agency. After receiving a four week training course with ICE, which only requires a final score of 70% to pass, officers whose facilities or towns sign a 287(g) agreement can then identify, separate, and kickstart the deportation process of foreign-born individuals. Civil rights organizations like the ACLU have called for the termination of these agreements for years, claiming that they put residents at a higher risk of being profiled or deported. 

“Detained immigrants, their families, and communities have fought for over a decade to end the 287(g) program because it entangles state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement,” explained Laura Rótolo, staff counsel and community advocate at the ACLU of Massachusetts. The ability to enter these agreements comes from the 287(g) section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was added by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This section allows the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter a written agreement with any state official or state-run department to allow local law enforcement to act as ICE agents. Massachusetts is the only state in New England to have entered these partnerships, making it one of the 25 total states in the U.S. to do so.

The first state institution in Massachusetts to end its 287(g) partnership was the Bristol County Sheriff’s office, which broke its agreement with ICE in May 2021 following an instance of excessive force used on ten detainees by way of flash bang grenades, tear gas and canines. In the case of Plymouth County, Sheriff Joe McDonald claimed that the termination of his office’s agreement comes from a lack of manpower, not from a lack of desire to continue the work, or the influence of outside organizations. The Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office still holds a housing contract with ICE, under which around 100 detainees are being held at this time for the federal government. According to McDonald, the county’s involvement in holding detainees is “not going to change”.  Meanwhile, Barnstable County and the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) still have 287(g) agreements in place. 

There are two types of programs an institution can enroll in when entering a 287(g) agreement: the Jail Enforcement Model (JEM) or the Warrant Service Officer Model (WSO). Barnstable County and the MA DOC both participate in JEM, which allows for a greater range of authority by those authorized to carry out immigration enforcement. Under JEM, officers and guards in state facilities may single out any foreign-born detainees, even if they are still pending any sort of criminal conviction, so that they may be researched, held for ICE, or written up for deportation. Under 287(g), around half of all deportations have been individuals with minor, or even non-criminal, offenses. The latest arrest made in MA cited by ICE for involving a foreign-born individual was made in Plymouth County of a lawful U.S. resident. 

The impact of having immigration enforcement so close to home is one residents and civil rights organizations alike have taken note of. On average, immigrants are less likely to feel safe around law enforcement, due to language barriers, social disparities and the fear of deportation. This can lead to people not getting necessary help in times of emergency, and a general distrust between the two parties. The implementation of ICE programs in local communities could increase this divide, as immigrants who have no recorded criminal history are now, what some may view as, uncomfortably close to federal-level enforcement. The fact that the 287(g) program is carried out differently depending on location can also blur the lines between local, state, and federal-level law enforcement, making it difficult for people to know who they are interacting with. Such barriers and mistrust can put immigrant communities at higher risk of becoming targets for crime, with perpetrators being aware of their victims’ reluctance to involve the police. Likewise, if said victims do come into contact with officers working under a 287(g) agreement, cultural differences on interacting with law enforcement could make the encounter difficult, or even dangerous, depending on who the person is, how they carry their items (such as identification), or what existing relationship with authority they may carry over from their home countries. 

Calls to end the 287(g) programs have been both advocated for and put into motion over the past years, with proposed legislation like Bill H. 1477, which was introduced by Representative Antonio Cabral in March. It is currently referred to the Joint Committee by the Judiciary for hearing. The ACLU of Massachusetts has continuously been on the side of those looking to put a stop to the programs, supporting the Safe Communities Act with Bill H.2418 from Representatives Balser and Miranda, and S.1579 from Senator Eldridge. These Bills would require state law enforcement to cease inquiring about immigration status (unless legally required), provide written consent from those being questioned by ICE to assure their full understanding of their rights, and the end of all 287(g) agreements. For that final piece alone, Massachusetts is halfway there.