15.10.2009 It`s time for Cobb County to move away from 287(g) The Tulsa County Sheriff`s Office (TCSO) renewed its 287(g) agreement with ICE in May 2020, to end it quickly next month. Citing financial concerns, TCSO spokeswoman Casey Roebuck confirmed the termination of Agreement 287(g): “Financially, it made sense to continue, to terminate the contract, to put these employees back in other positions… The Department of Homeland Security`s (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review of the 287(g) delegation of authority program from February 2009 to July 2009 and released its findings in March 2010. In September 2012, the DHS OIG released its report, “The Performance of 287(g) Agreements FY 2012 Follow-Up.” Warrant Officer Program (WSO) FAQFAQ on the latest 287(g) model of AIC, the Warrant Officer Program (WSO). Section 287(g), codified in 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g), was added by section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Accountability Act, 1996 (Division C, Title I of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act 1997, Pub.L. 104-208 (text) (pdf), 110 Stat. 3001, enacted September 30, 1996).  Originally, 287(g) programs were used to deport criminals who were screened in prison. Then, in 2006, officials from Charlotte, North Carolina Sheriff Jim Pendergraph began investigating the public for violations of civil immigration law. Thus began the “working group model” of 287 (g) in addition to the original prison model.
14.05.2010 The ACLU of Georgia calls for the immediate end of the 287(g) program in Cobb County As with other 287(g) agreements, TCSO was responsible for the salaries, benefits and overtime of all seconded agents trained by THE ICE. In addition to these financial concerns, the detention of individuals on behalf of ICE has resulted in prolonged stays in TCSO prisons and increased the risk of potential health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. ICE says one of the benefits of the 287(g) agreements is to limit the amount of time people spend in the agency`s care. In practice, however, these agreements do not appear to shorten the length of AIC custody and shift the burden of costs from the federal government to the local government. Detention is costly; A 2012 report by Justice Strategies found that the average length of stay of people released from the Los Angeles County Jail under ICE custody was 32.3 days. The average length of stay of all other dismissed persons was only 11.7 days. At a cost per prisoner of $113 per day, this equates to an additional $2,328 per inmate for AIC at the expense of local taxpayers. In addition to the cost of detention, the premises also assume legal responsibility for those detained in their local prisons. ICE detainees are requests to detain people in a local prison or prison beyond their otherwise legal detention period. Due to the different decisions from one state to another regarding the length of detention, places with 287(g) agreements may break the law if they comply with an ice prisoner. Local law enforcement agencies could be held liable if the detainee is detained for more than 48 hours – whether or not the jurisdiction conforms to an ICE detainee – or if the detainee is accidentally placed on a citizen.
End 287 (g) In TexasOne of the three 287 agreements (g) is currently located in Texas. This one-page document explains what the 287(g) agreements are, identifies the 25 Texas counties they have, and the steps we need to take to end the program. AIC currently requires participating officers to complete a four-week training process.  Of the 15,338 local police and sheriff`s offices in the United States, only 37 participated in 287(g) in March 2017.  Local officials who chose not to participate in the program or to cancel it cite as reasons the costs of the program, disruptions in their relationships with local residents, bad publicity, and the desire to focus on law enforcement rather than federal civil laws, including immigration laws.  Between 2006 and 2015, more than 402,000 immigrants were identified for deportation by § 287(g).  Despite skepticism about the effectiveness of program 287(g), the Trump administration has expressed respect for Locality 287(g) as a priority by threatening to withhold funds from cities of refuge, reflecting the politicization of these issues. .