287(g): An Explainer
How Local Law Enforcement Collaborates with ICE
There was a lack of clarity around one of the statements we made about 287(g) in our recent Instagram post about the students at UTK whose immigration status was suddenly changed, and we wanted to take the opportunity to educate ourselves and dig a little deeper into the nature of 287(g). This article details what we learned by providing a brief description of 287(g) with specific attention to its implementation in Knox County, TN. Please use the resources you find in the footnotes to learn more about how local law enforcement in your area may be collaborating with ICE.
287(g) is a program that deputizes local law enforcement into collaborative roles with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), whereby local law enforcement agrees to exercise certain immigration enforcement tasks with ICE’s oversight. The nomenclature “287(g)” is derived from a specific section in the Immigration and Nationality Act Illegal that was passed into law within the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.1
The significance of 287(g) cannot be overstated. The application of these agreements has been associated with sweeping civil rights violations in several counties in the US, most notably in Maricopa County, Arizona.2 This comes as no surprise given the racist origins of both ICE and policing in the US, but bears repeating to motivate our opposition to them.
This is not legal advice, and we do not have the qualifications to parse the legal nuances of 287(g). The information in this post has been obtained through personal research available to anyone with internet access. If you or someone you know is seeking legal help or knowledge, please consult a lawyer who has the necessary expertise.
As we understand it, there are 3 types of extant program models under 287(g): the jail enforcement model, the warrant service officer model, and the task force model.
Jail enforcement model: The jail enforcement model broadly empowers law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration policies within their jails. What this means in practice is officers can interrogate people in their custody to determine their immigration status, prepare and serve warrants of their arrest in relation to immigration violations, and issue ICE approved detainers. These powers can only be executed against people who are in the law enforcement agency’s jail.3
Warrant service officer model: As we understand it, the warrant service officer model has more limitations than the jail enforcement model. Thus, while officers are not given the authority to interrogate detainees to gather information pertaining to immigration status, they do have the power to serve administrative warrants on behalf of ICE. As with the jail enforcement model, these powers can only be executed against people who are in the law enforcement agency’s jail.4
Task force model: The most controversial of the three models, the task force model is described by ICE as a “force multiplier for law enforcement agencies to enforce limited immigration authority with ICE oversight during their routine police duties.”5[5] In practice, what distinguishes the task force model from the other two models is its delegation of power to local law enforcement to interrogate people about their immigration status in the field, outside of the context of jail. This means officers can interrogate anyone on the street they may suspect of violating immigration laws, and in some cases are even able to detain and arrest them. The task force model had been dormant since 2012 as a result of increased racial profiling, but has seen an enormous resurgence since Trump’s inauguration.6 The majority of this resurgence has been in Florida, though it is notable that in both Bedford County and Richmond, Virginia, have reinstated the task force model in recent months.7
In our previous post, we mentioned that there are only 2 counties in East Tennessee who work with ICE under 287(g) MOAs: Knox and Greene. In addition to these, Putnam and Hamblin counties have also signed MOAs with Ice. A map on the Immigration Legal Resource Center’s website shows that many more counties throughout Appalachia have memoranda of agreement.8 We encourage you to access the interactive map at the link in the footnote on this slide to learn how your local law enforcement may be collaborating with ICE. The map includes links to pdf’s of the specific memorandum of agreement for your area.
At time of writing, the Knox County Sheriff’s Office collaborates with ICE under the jail enforcement model, meaning they can have certain authority to interrogate detainees about immigration history, serve ICE administrative warrants, and issue charging documents.9 In an article published by the Knoxville News Sentinel on April 2, 2025, journalist Tyler Whetstone provides a heartrending account of what this looks like on the ground, citing statistics gathered by UT professor Meghan Conley: record breaking detentions in Knox County.10
The mechanisms that are leading to increased detention rates in Knox County jails, namely the use of 287(g) in conjunction with detention bed contracts signed between ICE and state and local governments, are detailed in a 2020 article by Conley, “Knox County’s 287(g) Program and Detention Bed Contract: Police-ICE Collaboration in Knox County Jail Sept. 2017-May 2020.”11 This article provides an excellent, data based account of the use of 287(g) in Knox County through May 2020. We encourage you to seek it out.
Takeaways:
1 - As of yet, KCSO does not have the power to exercise authorities pertaining to immigration outside of its jails. In order for this to be the case, a new memorandum of agreement would have to be signed by KCSO and ICE under the task force model of 287(g). With this in mind, international students who are not detained in a Knox County jail are not liable to enforcement of immigration matters by local law enforcement.
2 - KCSO has a longstanding history of collaboration with ICE that is not limited to 287(g). The use of bed contracts in Knox county has led to the detention of hundreds of people with little transparency at the behest of ICE after routine ICE checkins.
3 - The history of 287(g) in the US is fraught with racist corruption. The surge in racial profiling from 1996 to 2012 led to the dormancy of the task enforcement model, whereby law enforcement officers are given broad power to enforce immigration authority in the field, outside of jails. Since Trump’s reelection, the task enforcement model has seen a powerful resurgence in states like Florida, along with speckled adaptation in other counties across the US.
4 - It is incumbent upon natural born, white US citizens to build effective opposition to ICE. Until systemic change is achieved, this means we must be involved in direct action to protect our migrant siblings: be informed about ICE activity in your area, learn how your local law enforcement may be collaborating with ICE, record any ICE encounter you witness, intervene if at all possible. White silence has meant the imprisonment and death of innumerable Black and Brown people throughout US history. This must change—be loud!
For the liberation of all people, for the liberation of all species,
Suck out the poison!
ibid.