Despite online chatter claiming a retired federal prosecutor in Kansas recently blasted “haters” who shame immigration enforcement, no public record confirms such a statement as of 2025. The broader story, however, is clear: Kansas is expanding cooperation with federal authorities through Section 287(g) while critics warn the approach harms trust and due process.
KBI-ICE Agreement Under Section 287(g)
In February 2025, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) entered a formal partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The pact lets selected KBI personnel receive ICE training and act with limited federal authority.
According to the agreement’s outline, trained agents can:
– Issue immigration detainers
– Serve administrative warrants for immigration violations
– Arrest people alleged to be in the United States without authorization
KBI Director Tony Mattivi backed the deal as a way to remove known criminal offenders from communities more quickly. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach also applauded the move, arguing it would stop the release of undocumented people with serious records, including gang members. Their comments reflect a tough enforcement mindset that has guided several Kansas agencies in recent years.
The 287(g) program is a decades-old tool that allows state or local officers—after ICE instruction and oversight—to carry out certain immigration tasks. For the formal program description and current agreements, see ICE’s official page: https://www.ice.gov/287g. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, Section 287(g) lets trained officers support ICE on specific functions while remaining subject to federal supervision and program rules.
Kansas’s statewide jump into 287(g) through the KBI marks a new phase. Historically, several counties joined first. The 2025 KBI partnership moves the model to a broader state-level platform, signaling stronger alignment between Kansas law enforcement leadership and ICE.
Legislative Push and Internal Divide
Soon after the KBI agreement, Senate Bill 178 appeared in February 2025, seeking to require certain law enforcement agencies to sign 287(g) or similar cooperation agreements with ICE. That proposal did not advance; it died in committee by March 2025.
The bill’s quick stall shows there isn’t full agreement in Topeka about mandating federal partnerships. While top officials champion the approach, others in the Legislature—and many community stakeholders—have raised questions about:
– Costs
– Local control
– Effects on public safety
The policy rift in Kansas mirrors a national split. Both President Trump and President Biden maintained or expanded 287(g) partnerships, though they set different enforcement priorities.
Supporters argue the program helps remove dangerous offenders. Opponents counter that local involvement in federal immigration duties:
– Blurs jurisdictional lines
– Risks racial or national-origin profiling
– Pushes immigrant families farther from the justice system
Community Impact and Legal Concerns
Advocates and legal experts in Kansas report growing fear in immigrant communities as state and local enforcement deepens. They point to cases in which immigrants who might qualify for protective visas—such as victims of serious crimes—were still detained by ICE.
When people worry that reporting a crime or appearing in court could lead to detention, they are less likely to:
– Call 911
– Cooperate with prosecutors
– Testify as witnesses
That reluctance has consequences that reach far beyond immigration status and can degrade public safety.
Attorneys who work in and around the Kansas City immigration court say many people appear without legal counsel. Immigration court is civil, not criminal, so there is no right to a government-paid lawyer. As a result, families often face complex rules alone.
Former judges and advocates have criticized recent practices—such as:
– Faster removals
– Case dismissals without a full hearing
– Instances where ICE detained people right after court appearances
They argue these practices erode due process and weaken trust in the system’s fairness.
Supporters of the KBI-ICE partnership contend that 287(g) is tightly focused on public safety. They highlight:
– Training requirements
– Federal oversight
as guardrails that prevent misuse. They also stress that removing people with serious criminal records makes neighborhoods safer and reduces repeat offenses. AG Kobach has framed the move as a way to end the release of dangerous individuals back onto the streets.
Opponents—including defense attorneys, service providers, and community groups—counter that even well-aimed enforcement can sweep up people with pending relief or mixed-status families with U.S. citizen children. They warn that detainers and administrative warrants—tools used in the 287(g) context—can pull victims and witnesses into detention despite their cooperation with police. This, they say, sends a chilling message that undermines both safety and justice.
Important: When victims and witnesses fear detention, reporting and prosecution rates fall. This effect can harm community safety even when the stated goal is public protection.
The Contested Narrative Around “Haters”
The online claim about a “retired federal prosecutor” in Kansas condemning “haters” of immigration enforcement taps into a familiar storyline: one side casting critics as soft on crime, the other warning of heavy-handed tactics. However, there is no direct public record of such a remark in 2025.
What is well-documented is the intensifying policy battle in Kansas. High-profile officials like Tony Mattivi and Kris Kobach have made the public-safety case for deeper ICE partnerships. Immigrant advocates, former judges, and many attorneys respond that the price paid in trust, access to counsel, and due process is too steep.
For families, the stakes are personal:
– If a parent fears arrest when dropping a child at school or attending a court date, they may avoid routine parts of life.
– If a victim worries that a police report will trigger detention, the abuser gains more power.
These concerns show up in police clearance rates, victim services visits, and the willingness of witnesses to step forward.
What Comes Next in Kansas
Though SB 178 failed, the political push for expanded cooperation is not over. State leaders and some sheriffs support further 287(g) agreements or similar arrangements. Meanwhile, courts and attorneys will keep pressing for safeguards that protect due process—especially:
- Access to lawyers
- An end to practices that lead to detention right after hearings
Kansas’s enforcement landscape reflects national crosscurrents. The state-level 287(g) step by the KBI is part of a broader pattern that continued under both President Trump and President Biden, even as their administrations set different guidance about enforcement priorities.
The claim about a “retired federal prosecutor” may be unverified, but the debate it hints at is visible in every courthouse and patrol car decision. On one side stand officials convinced that swift 287(g)-enabled action will keep the public safe. On the other stand advocates who argue that aggressive tactics:
– Punish victims
– Weaken due process
– Make it harder to solve crimes
That tug-of-war will shape the next bills in the Statehouse, the next training classes at KBI, and the next family’s choice to pick up the phone when trouble strikes.
This Article in a Nutshell
Kansas’s KBI signed a Section 287(g) agreement with ICE in February 2025, expanding state-level immigration enforcement. SB 178 to mandate cooperation failed in March 2025. Supporters argue public-safety benefits; critics warn of profiling, reduced trust, and due process harms, noting many immigration respondents lack legal counsel.
