287(g) Is a Worthwhile Program

The Quote Below — More Misinformation from the Media:

“Massachusetts sheriffs have plenty on their plates, and shouldn’t be spending their time on federal immigration. That go from common sense to law state if the Legislature approves modest reform. The more substantial provision in the package would end so-called 287 (g) agreements between local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. Under such partnerships ICE pays for training, but all other costs – salaries, travel, overtime – are paid by taxpayers. . . .

“The reforms, contained in a budget amendment that passed the Senate last month, do not make Massachusetts a “sanctuary state,” contrary to opponents’ characterization, and do not restrict communication between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs, or ICE. . . .

“But not all detainees at jails have been convicted of anything, putting sheriffs in a different category. And unlike the correction department, sheriff’s offices interact more with the wider public. The potential chilling effect on the community that could occur if sheriffs are seen as appendages of ICE is more significant.” – Modest Immigration Reform in Mass. Could Send a Powerful Massage, The Boston Globe, 6/15/18 [Link]

Fact Check on Quote: The 287 (g) agreements are an excellent example of common sense. It makes sense for all levels of government to cooperate in fighting crime. This is commonly accepted in such tasks such as drug law enforcement. But illegal alien advocates proclaim that it should not apply to immigration law. The reason is very simple. The 287 (g) agreements have proven quite effective—so effective that the Obama Administration did everything it could to end them.

One objection to the agreements, noted in the article, is the costs to localities. But these are costs– with this voluntary arrangement–that the communities willingly assume. Many participants see it as an investment in more effective enforcement against illegal alien criminals which more than covers its costs. Taxpayers save money when offenders are deported instead of remaining in the U.S. and becoming repeat offenders.

Another objection, also noted, is that local involvement in law enforcement has a “chilling effect” on the reporting of crimes, specifically by illegal aliens who fear they may be deported if they go to authorities to make a crime report. Little evidence supports this claim.

The article notes that not all illegal aliens deported as a result of 287 (g) cooperation have been convicted of crimes. But that is irrelevant. If they are indeed illegal aliens, that alone is sufficient to warrant their deportation.

Once again, it’s not defects of 287(g) agreements that raises the ire of its critics. It’s the fact that they work all too well as a force multiplier for immigration law enforcement.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here