Key Takeaways
• Putnam County’s 287(g) agreement with ICE remains active as of May 22, 2025, enabling local immigration enforcement.
• Gonzalez v. ICE settlement limits ICE detainers, affecting immigration detention procedures nationwide, including Putnam County.
• Wells Police in Maine paused their 287(g) agreement, signaling growing challenges to local ICE partnerships.
Executive Summary
Putnam County, New York, continues its formal partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement to perform certain federal immigration enforcement duties. This policy brief examines the current status of the agreement, recent developments—including legal and legislative changes—operational details, and the broader implications for community trust, legal rights, and public safety. Drawing on recent events, such as the Wells Police Department’s pause of its 287(g) agreement and the nationwide impact of the Gonzalez v. ICE settlement, this analysis presents evidence-based recommendations for Putnam County and similar jurisdictions. The brief concludes with practical options and policy recommendations to balance public safety, legal compliance, and community trust.
Introduction
Putnam County, located in New York State, has maintained a formal collaboration with ICE through the 287(g) program. This agreement allows designated local law enforcement officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions, primarily focused on the transfer and detention of individuals for removal from the United States. As of May 22, 2025, Putnam County’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with ICE remains active, positioning the county as one of over 600 jurisdictions nationwide participating in this controversial program.
The 287(g) program, authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, enables ICE to delegate specific immigration enforcement powers to trained local officers. While supporters argue that this partnership enhances public safety by targeting individuals with criminal convictions, critics contend that it undermines community trust and raises significant legal and ethical concerns.
Recent developments—including the Gonzalez v. ICE settlement and legislative efforts in other states—have brought renewed attention to the future of local-federal immigration enforcement partnerships. This policy brief provides a comprehensive analysis of Putnam County’s agreement with ICE, explores the implications for various stakeholders, and offers actionable recommendations for policymakers.
Background
The 287(g) Program: National Context
The 287(g) program was established to allow local law enforcement agencies to assist ICE in identifying and removing individuals who may be subject to deportation. As of May 2025, ICE reports that 603 Memorandums of Agreement are in effect across 40 states, reflecting a broad but uneven adoption of the program nationwide (ICE 287(g) Program Overview).
Under the program, local officers receive specialized training and certification from ICE. Their authority is limited to specific functions, such as facilitating the transfer of individuals to ICE custody at the time of their release from local criminal custody. The program’s scope and implementation vary by jurisdiction, often shaped by local priorities, resources, and political considerations.
Putnam County’s Agreement with ICE
Putnam County’s participation in the 287(g) program is formalized through a Memorandum of Agreement with ICE. Key features of the agreement include:
- Delegation of Authority: Selected Putnam County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) personnel are authorized to perform limited immigration enforcement duties under ICE supervision.
- Transfer and Detention: PCSO can facilitate the transfer of individuals to ICE for removal purposes at the time of their scheduled release from criminal custody. Individuals may be held in county jail facilities for up to 48 hours pending transfer, unless a separate agreement allows for longer detention with reimbursement.
- Supervision and Oversight: All immigration enforcement activities by PCSO personnel are supervised and directed by ICE. Local officers cannot act independently in immigration matters.
- Notification Requirements: PCSO must notify ICE about individuals in custody who may be subject to immigration enforcement.
This arrangement is part of a broader strategy by ICE to leverage local resources for federal immigration enforcement, particularly in areas with significant immigrant populations.
Historical Collaboration and Community Impact
Putnam County’s collaboration with ICE extends beyond the 287(g) program. The county’s probation office has shared information with ICE, leading to the arrest and detention of immigrants, including individuals reporting for probation appointments. These practices have generated concern among immigrant advocates and public defenders, who argue that they undermine due process and create fear within immigrant communities.
Sheriff Farris of Putnam County has publicly stated that ICE operations in the county focus on individuals with criminal convictions, emphasizing that the Hispanic community is “an integral part of Putnam County” and should feel welcome. However, the close relationship between local law enforcement and ICE remains a source of tension and debate.
Analysis
Recent Developments
Wells Police Department Pauses 287(g) Participation
On May 21, 2025, the Wells Police Department in Maine announced a pause in its 287(g) agreement with ICE, citing pending state legislation that would prohibit such collaborations. This move reflects growing scrutiny of local-federal immigration partnerships and may set a precedent for other jurisdictions, including Putnam County. Community members in Wells expressed concerns about local resources being used for federal enforcement and collected signatures to support withdrawal from the program.
Gonzalez v. ICE Settlement
A landmark legal settlement in Gonzalez v. ICE will take effect on March 4, 2025, fundamentally changing how ICE issues detainers. Under the settlement, ICE’s Pacific Enforcement Response Center (PERC) will be limited to issuing Requests for Notification of Release, rather than detainers that request continued detention. This change addresses longstanding concerns about the constitutional right to liberty and the lack of neutral oversight for detainer arrests. The settlement is expected to impact ICE operations in most U.S. states, including procedures in Putnam County.
Legislative Efforts in New York
In New York, the proposed New York for All Act (S.03076/A.02328) sought to prohibit state and local agency collaboration with ICE and prevent the use of state resources for federal immigration enforcement. Although the bill did not pass in the previous legislative session, it reflects ongoing efforts to limit local participation in federal immigration enforcement.
Operational Details and Challenges
The MOA between Putnam County and ICE outlines strict procedures for the transfer and detention of individuals. Key operational challenges include:
- Resource Allocation: Local law enforcement agencies must dedicate personnel and resources to fulfill ICE-related duties, potentially diverting attention from other public safety priorities.
- Legal Liability: Holding individuals on ICE detainers without judicial oversight has led to legal challenges and potential liability for unlawful detention.
- Community Relations: Collaboration with ICE can erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, making it harder to investigate crimes and maintain public safety.
Multiple Perspectives
Law Enforcement
Sheriff Farris and other law enforcement officials argue that the 287(g) program targets individuals who pose a threat to public safety, such as those with criminal convictions. They emphasize the importance of cooperation with federal authorities to remove dangerous individuals from the community.
Immigrant Advocates
Organizations like the Bronx Defenders have documented cases where individuals complying with probation requirements were arrested by ICE, raising concerns about due process and the chilling effect on community cooperation with law enforcement. Advocates argue that these practices create fear and discourage immigrants from reporting crimes or seeking help.
Community Members
In jurisdictions like Wells, Maine, community members have organized to oppose 287(g) agreements, citing concerns about the use of local resources and the impact on community cohesion. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Putnam County, where residents worry about the broader implications for immigrant families and public safety.
Options
Based on the current status, recent developments, and stakeholder perspectives, Putnam County has several options regarding its collaboration with ICE under the 287(g) program:
1. Maintain the Current Agreement
- Pros: Continues cooperation with ICE, potentially enhancing the removal of individuals with criminal convictions.
- Cons: Maintains existing concerns about community trust, legal liability, and resource allocation.
2. Modify the Agreement
- Pros: Allows for adjustments in response to legal developments (such as the Gonzalez v. ICE settlement) and community concerns. Could include stricter oversight, improved transparency, or limits on the types of cases eligible for ICE transfer.
- Cons: May require renegotiation with ICE and additional training for local personnel.
3. Suspend or Terminate the Agreement
- Pros: Addresses community concerns, reduces legal liability, and aligns with legislative efforts to limit local-federal collaboration.
- Cons: May reduce ICE’s ability to remove individuals with criminal convictions from the community and could face opposition from some law enforcement officials.
4. Increase Community Engagement and Oversight
- Pros: Builds trust with immigrant communities, improves transparency, and ensures that enforcement practices align with local values.
- Cons: Requires investment in outreach and oversight mechanisms.
Recommendations
Based on the analysis above, the following evidence-based recommendations are offered for Putnam County and similar jurisdictions:
1. Conduct a Comprehensive Review of the 287(g) Agreement
Putnam County should undertake a thorough review of its MOA with ICE, considering recent legal developments (such as the Gonzalez v. ICE settlement) and community feedback. This review should assess the agreement’s impact on public safety, legal compliance, and community trust.
2. Implement Clear Guidelines and Oversight Mechanisms
To address concerns about due process and legal liability, Putnam County should establish clear guidelines for when and how individuals are transferred to ICE custody. Oversight mechanisms—such as regular audits and public reporting—can help ensure accountability and transparency.
3. Enhance Community Engagement
Building trust with immigrant communities is essential for effective law enforcement. Putnam County should invest in outreach programs, community forums, and partnerships with local organizations to ensure that all residents feel safe and supported.
4. Monitor Legal and Legislative Developments
Given the rapidly changing legal landscape, Putnam County should closely monitor developments at the state and federal levels, including the implementation of the Gonzalez v. ICE settlement and potential state legislation affecting local-federal collaboration.
5. Consider Alternatives to Detention
Where appropriate, Putnam County should explore alternatives to detention for individuals subject to ICE transfer, particularly in cases involving non-violent offenses or individuals with strong community ties.
Evidence and Official Resources
- ICE 287(g) Program Overview: ICE Official Website
- Gonzalez v. ICE Settlement Details: ACLU Case Page
- New York for All Act: NY State Senate Bill S03076
- VisaVerge.com reports that local-federal immigration partnerships like the 287(g) program continue to generate debate over their impact on community safety and immigrant rights.
Conclusion and Next Steps
Putnam County’s collaboration with ICE under the 287(g) program reflects a broader national debate about the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. While the agreement aims to enhance public safety by targeting individuals with criminal convictions, it also raises significant concerns about legal rights, community trust, and the allocation of local resources.
Recent legal and legislative developments—including the Gonzalez v. ICE settlement and the pause of similar agreements in other jurisdictions—underscore the need for Putnam County to reassess its approach. By conducting a comprehensive review, implementing clear guidelines, and engaging with the community, Putnam County can strike a balance between public safety and the protection of individual rights.
Actionable Next Steps:
- Initiate a public review of the 287(g) agreement with input from all stakeholders.
- Establish transparent oversight and reporting mechanisms for ICE-related activities.
- Expand community outreach to address concerns and build trust.
- Stay informed about legal changes and adjust policies as needed.
For more information on the 287(g) program and related immigration enforcement policies, visit the ICE 287(g) Program Overview.
By taking these steps, Putnam County can ensure that its policies reflect both the needs of its residents and the requirements of the law, setting a model for other jurisdictions facing similar challenges.
Learn Today
287(g) Program → A federal program allowing trained local law enforcement to perform specific immigration enforcement duties under ICE supervision.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) → A formal contract outlining responsibilities and rules between Putnam County and ICE for immigration enforcement.
ICE Detainer → A request from ICE to local authorities to hold a detainee for immigration removal processing.
Gonzalez v. ICE Settlement → A legal ruling limiting ICE’s ability to issue detainers, requiring notifications instead to protect liberty rights.
Local-Federal Collaboration → Cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities for enforcement activities.
This Article in a Nutshell
Putnam County actively collaborates with ICE through the 287(g) program, balancing immigration enforcement and community trust amid legal changes and public concerns about detainee rights and policing resources.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• South Dakota officials call for expanded role in immigration enforcement
• House Passes Trump’s Tax and Immigration Blitz
• Congress Quietly Revives Immigration Reform Push
• H-1B visa holders face tighter US immigration crackdown in new measures
• Senate committee has not proposed 20% French immigration target outside Quebec
