287(g) Agreements in South Carolina

Ordinarily in the United States, immigration enforcement is the job of federal agencies. But under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can train and authorize local law enforcement officers to identify, arrest, and detain people for potential deportation.

There are three types of 287(g) agreements:

Warrant Service Officer (limited powers)

This type of agreement allows ICE to train, certify, and authorize state and local law enforcement officers to serve and execute administrative immigration warrants on people who are already in custody in their agency’s jail.

Jail Enforcement Model (more power, jails only)

The federal government deputizes corrections officers in local jails, under the supervision of ICE, to interrogate people in their custody about their immigration status and funnel people into the deportation pipeline.

These agreements give corrections officers duties they are ill-equipped to perform, raising the possibility of errors and abuse. These agreements are commonly accompanied by contracts to rent cell space to detain immigrants in removal proceedings or awaiting deportation, allowing counties to profit from the cruelty of immigration detention.

Task Force Model (most power)

ICE describes this type of agreement as “a force multiplier” that allows state and local law enforcement agencies to make immigration arrests during routine police enforcement. This model, the broadest and deepest form of collusion with ICE, essentially turns police officers into ICE agents.

ICE discontinued the Task Force Model in 2012 due to a pattern of rampant racial profiling and other civil rights abuses by agencies that participated in the program. ICE brought back the Task Force Model in 2025 as White House advisor Stephen Miller sought to use local police to supplement ICE hiring and meet his own arbitrary arrest and deportation quotas.

Under 287(g) agreements, even minor interactions with police can result in questioning about immigration status, detention, deportation, and separation of families. As a result, 287(g) agreements erode trust in local law enforcement, particularly among immigrant communities.

When immigrant communities distrust local police, they are less likely to report crimes and come forward as witnesses. A 2021 article in Political Behavior looked at places where local law enforcement cooperated with ICE and found that members of Hispanic communities who were victims of crimes became less willing to report those crimes.

ICE officials have claimed they are targeting cartel members, violent criminals, and “the worst of the worst.” The facts do not match their claims. Data released by ICE show that as immigration enforcement increases, the percent of those arrested who are convicted of a crime decreases, according to the Immigration Research Initiative.

287(g) agreements reallocate local tax dollars away from community safety and toward meeting federal mass-deportation quotas. Sheriffs and other officials are not always honest about the costs of these programs up front.

In Charleston County, a previous 287(g) agreement cost an estimated $4 million per year according to the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center. A 2019 study by the North Carolina Justice Center found that the cumulative cost to North Carolina taxpayers of collaboration with ICE over a decade was at least $81.7 million.

Although the Trump administration announced temporary financial incentives in 2025 to agencies that sign 287(g) agreements, it is not at all clear that the incentives being offered will make up for those costs.

Many ICE partnerships in South Carolina are signed by sheriffs. Those are elected positions. The next time your sheriff is up for election, research the candidates’ positions on this issue. If they haven’t announced their positions, ask them about it.

If your local police force has already entered an agreement with ICE, demand answers from elected officials on your town, city, or county council about the cost and outcomes of this program. What does it cost, in terms of employee hours and dollars spent? What are the outcomes, and how is this partnership affecting trust between police and the communities they serve?

As with so many national struggles that can feel overwhelming, we can still turn the tide at the local level.