Section 287(G) Agreements

by admin on October 6, 2021

In fact, recent surveys by the Center for American Progress show that some local law enforcement agencies decided to withdraw their 287(g) agreements precisely because immigrants were afraid to contact the police. Being afraid to report crimes and interact with police is all too familiar to many immigrants like Rita Cote and Danny Sigui. 04.03.2009 ACLU testimony for the House Homeland Security Committee hearing entitled “Review of 287(g): The Role of National and Local Immigration Enforcement” When a local law enforcement authority (LEA) makes the voluntary decision, to enter into a Title 287(g) agreement, it provides local staff and resources to cooperate more closely with ICE on immigration enforcement9 to the light from these partners. Chaft Convention It is in the public interest to ensure that heads of municipalities and other important constituencies have a good opportunity to give local officials feedback on how these agreements work. Regular cooperation with local stakeholders can help to ensure effective monitoring, improve compliance with the conditions of the MOA and provide much-needed ongoing input to determine whether maintaining such an agreement with ECI has a positive or negative impact on the Community as a whole. Currently, DHS only negotiates “prison agreements” that allow local police to behave like federal immigration officers in local prisons. As a result, the local police interrogate people in these prisons about their immigration status, prepare documents to charge them with immigration offenses, and order the continued detention of people presumed to be deported. . . .

Previous post:

Next post: