The 287(g) Program Protection Act mandates that the Department of Homeland Security enter into immigration enforcement agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies upon request and establishes new oversight, reporting, and funding requirements for the program.
Michael Cloud
Representative
TX-27
The 287(g) Program Protection Act mandates that the Department of Homeland Security enter into immigration enforcement agreements with any state or local law enforcement agency that requests one. The bill streamlines the approval process, protects existing agreements from arbitrary termination, and requires the Secretary to provide annual performance reports and recruitment plans to expand the program. Additionally, it establishes uniform training standards and reallocates funding to support these state and local partnerships.
287(g) Program Protection Act Mandates Local Immigration Enforcement Agreements and Sets 90-Day Approval Deadlines
The 287(g) Program Protection Act shifts the power balance of immigration enforcement by requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to approve requests from state and local law enforcement agencies to perform federal immigration duties. Under Section 2 of the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security must enter into a written agreement with any 'bona fide' local agency that asks for one, provided they cover their own costs. This isn't just a suggestion; the bill mandates that these requests be processed within 90 days. It also ensures that federal technology—like automated screening programs in jails—cannot be used as an excuse to deny a local agency its own hands-on enforcement agreement.
The Local Badge Goes Federal
Under this bill, your local sheriff’s office or police department could choose from several 'models' of enforcement. Section 2 allows jurisdictions to pick a patrol model (on the streets), a jail model (inside corrections facilities), or a task force model. For a construction worker or a delivery driver, this means the person pulling them over for a broken taillight could potentially have the legal authority to investigate their immigration status on the spot. While the bill requires 'uniform training' to meet federal standards, it also makes it much harder for the federal government to say 'no' to a local town that wants to join the program, unless there is a 'compelling reason'—a term the bill doesn't strictly define.
Locked-In Agreements and New Funding
Once a local agency is in the program, it’s very hard for the federal government to kick them out. Section 2 states that an agreement can only be terminated for a 'compelling reason' and requires a 180-day notice period. If the federal government tries to end the partnership, the local agency can sue or go before an administrative judge, and the program stays active while the legal battle plays out. To pay for the administrative side of this expansion, Section 3 renames and repurposes the 'Breached Bond Detention Fund' into the 'Breached Bond Detention 287(g) Fund,' moving the money from the Justice Department to DHS specifically to support these local partnerships.
Keeping Score on the Results
To track how this expansion works, Section 4 requires DHS to publish an annual 'Performance Report' starting every December 31. This report has to list exactly how many people were grabbed and screened by local cops, how many were actually deported, and—importantly—an explanation for every person who was screened but not removed. For a small business owner in a diverse neighborhood, this could mean more transparency into how local police are spending their time, but it also signals a heavy push for recruitment. The bill specifically requires a five-year plan to scout and sign up new cities and states to the program, essentially turning immigration enforcement into a growth-oriented federal-local franchise.