Key Takeaways
• DHS labeled seven North Dakota counties as sanctuary jurisdictions on June 1, 2025, sparking sheriffs’ objections.
• Four counties have active 287(g) agreements allowing jail officers to enforce immigration, as of May 21, 2025.
• Proposed HB1585 would require all peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to ICE with penalties for noncompliance.
North Dakota Sheriffs Push Back Against Political Pressure in Immigration Enforcement
Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How
In June 2025, sheriffs across North Dakota found themselves at the center of a heated national debate over immigration enforcement. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) labeled seven North Dakota counties as “sanctuary jurisdictions,” sparking strong objections from the North Dakota Sheriffs & Deputies Association (NDSDA). The sheriffs argue that politics is interfering with their work, making it harder to serve and protect their communities. This dispute highlights the growing tension between federal immigration policies and local law enforcement, especially as new agreements and proposed laws increase local involvement in immigration enforcement.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions: The Latest Flashpoint
On June 1, 2025, DHS released a list naming Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope counties as sanctuary jurisdictions. According to DHS, these counties were not cooperating fully with federal immigration enforcement. The NDSDA quickly responded, denying the claim and stating that their officers regularly work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol. The sheriffs said they had not received any guidance from DHS on how to address the concerns or remove the sanctuary label.
In a public statement on June 4, a North Dakota sheriff called for keeping politics out of immigration enforcement. The sheriff warned that political accusations and labels damage trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. The NDSDA emphasized, “North Dakota sheriffs strive every day to protect the public as well as holding criminal actors accountable regardless of immigration status.”
What Is a Sanctuary Jurisdiction?
A “sanctuary jurisdiction” is a place where local authorities limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. There is no single definition, and the criteria for labeling a county or city as a sanctuary jurisdiction can vary. Some places may refuse to hold people in jail for ICE unless there is a warrant, while others may not share certain information with federal immigration authorities. The term is often used in political debates and can carry serious consequences, such as threats to federal funding or increased public scrutiny.
287(g) Agreements: Local Law Enforcement’s Role in Immigration
While some counties are being labeled as sanctuary jurisdictions, others in North Dakota are increasing their cooperation with ICE through 287(g) agreements. As of May 21, 2025, law enforcement agencies in Dunn, Dickinson, Eddy, and McKenzie counties have signed these agreements. The 287(g) program allows local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement duties, mainly inside jails. Officers who are deputized under this program can question, detain, and start deportation proceedings for people suspected of immigration violations.
ICE reports that, as of June 4, 2025, there are 641 active 287(g) agreements across 40 states, including four in North Dakota. Most of these agreements in North Dakota use the Jail Enforcement Model, which means only corrections officers working in jails are involved in immigration enforcement, not regular patrol officers.
Step-by-Step: How the 287(g) Jail Enforcement Model Works
- Arrest and Booking: A person is arrested and brought to a local jail.
- Immigration Screening: Deputized corrections officers check the person’s immigration status.
- ICE Notification: If someone is suspected of being undocumented, ICE is notified.
- Detainer Issued: ICE may ask the jail to hold the person for immigration proceedings.
- Transfer or Release: The person is either handed over to ICE or released if there is no immigration violation.
For more details about the 287(g) program, visit the official ICE 287(g) information page.
Proposed State Law: HB1585
North Dakota lawmakers are also considering House Bill 1585 (HB1585), introduced on February 3, 2025. If passed, this law would require all peace officers in the state to report undocumented immigrants to ICE. Officers or agencies that fail to report could face penalties. The bill is currently being reviewed in committee and has not become law yet. Supporters say the bill would strengthen immigration enforcement, while critics warn it could damage trust between police and immigrant communities.
How HB1585 Would Work (If Enacted)
- Encounter: An officer meets someone suspected of being undocumented.
- Verification: The officer checks the person’s immigration status.
- Reporting: If the person is undocumented, the officer must report them to ICE.
- Penalty: Officers or agencies that do not report could face penalties.
Why Are Sheriffs Objecting?
North Dakota sheriffs say that being labeled as sanctuary jurisdictions is unfair and inaccurate. They argue that their departments already work closely with federal immigration authorities and that the sanctuary label is based on misunderstandings or lack of communication from DHS. The sheriffs also worry that political debates about immigration enforcement are making it harder for them to do their jobs. When law enforcement is seen as too closely tied to immigration enforcement, people in immigrant communities may be afraid to report crimes or cooperate with police.
A sheriff’s public statement on June 4, 2025, summed up these concerns: “Political rhetoric undermines community trust and law enforcement effectiveness.” The NDSDA says that local officers should focus on public safety, not politics.
Community Impact: Fear and Distrust
When local police take on immigration enforcement duties, many immigrants—both documented and undocumented—become afraid to interact with law enforcement. This fear can stop people from reporting crimes, seeking help, or acting as witnesses. Civil rights groups argue that programs like 287(g) and laws like HB1585 make communities less safe because they break down trust between police and the people they serve.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these concerns are not unique to North Dakota. Across the United States 🇺🇸, local involvement in immigration enforcement has led to similar problems, including increased fear in immigrant communities and lower rates of crime reporting.
Legal Risks and Challenges
There are also legal risks for local agencies that participate in immigration enforcement. Civil rights groups warn that 287(g) agreements can lead to racial profiling—when officers target people based on their race or ethnicity rather than any evidence of a crime. There is also a risk of violating people’s constitutional rights, such as the right to due process. Lawsuits in other states have challenged local immigration enforcement on these grounds.
It’s important to note that there is no federal law requiring local police to help enforce immigration laws. Participation in programs like 287(g) is voluntary. However, some state lawmakers want to make cooperation mandatory, as seen with HB1585.
Federal and State Policy Makers: Divided Opinions
Federal and state officials are split on how much local law enforcement should be involved in immigration enforcement. Some, including supporters of HB1585, argue that stricter enforcement is needed to protect public safety. Others believe that immigration enforcement should remain a federal responsibility, so local police can focus on their main job—keeping communities safe.
The Trump administration has supported expanding 287(g) agreements, encouraging more local agencies to join the program. This has led to more counties in North Dakota and other states signing up.
Background: How Did We Get Here?
Traditionally, immigration enforcement has been handled by federal agencies like ICE and Border Patrol. But since the early 2000s, programs like 287(g) have allowed local police and sheriffs to play a bigger role. At the same time, some cities and counties have chosen to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, leading to the rise of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.
The debate over local involvement in immigration enforcement has grown more intense in recent years, especially as some states pass laws requiring or banning cooperation with ICE. North Dakota is now part of this national conversation, with sheriffs caught in the middle.
Practical Effects for Law Enforcement and Immigrant Communities
- For Law Enforcement:
- Increased Workload: Taking on immigration enforcement duties can stretch local resources thin, making it harder to focus on other crimes.
- Community Relations: Being seen as an arm of federal immigration can damage trust, especially in immigrant communities.
- Legal Liability: Agencies risk lawsuits if they violate people’s rights during immigration enforcement.
- For Immigrant Communities:
- Fear of Police: People may avoid calling police, even in emergencies, if they fear deportation.
- Family Separation: Increased enforcement can lead to more families being split apart.
- Public Safety: When people are afraid to report crimes, everyone in the community is less safe.
Stakeholder Perspectives
- North Dakota Sheriffs & Deputies Association: Strongly objects to sanctuary labeling and accusations of obstructing immigration enforcement. Emphasizes ongoing cooperation with ICE and commitment to public safety.
- Civil Rights and Advocacy Groups: Oppose local involvement in immigration enforcement, citing harm to community trust and risk of civil rights violations.
- Federal and State Policy Makers: Divided, with some pushing for stricter enforcement and others warning against overburdening local agencies.
Recent Incidents and Security Concerns
In February 2025, the Williams County Sheriff’s Office received notice that an ICE agent would arrive to transfer an inmate. However, an individual impersonated an ICE agent, leading to a security incident. This highlights the challenges and risks that come with increased local involvement in immigration enforcement, including the need for clear communication and proper identification.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for North Dakota?
- HB1585: The bill is still in committee, and its future is uncertain. If passed, it would make North Dakota one of several states requiring local law enforcement to report undocumented immigrants to ICE.
- 287(g) Expansion: More counties may join the program, especially with support from the Trump administration.
- Legal Challenges: Sanctuary labeling and mandatory reporting laws could face lawsuits, as seen in other states.
- Community Impact: The debate is likely to continue, with ongoing concerns about public safety, civil rights, and community trust.
Official Resources and Contacts
- ICE 287(g) Program Information: ICE 287(g) Official Page
- North Dakota Legislative Bill Tracking: HB1585 Bill Text and Status
- Williams County Sheriff’s Office: 701-577-7700, [email protected]
- North Dakota Department of Commerce, Office of Legal Immigration:
- Paige Kuntz, Global Talent Administrator: [email protected], 701-328-7292
- Buba Kanaji, Global Talent Coordinator: [email protected], 701-328-5455
- Katie Ralston Howe, Director: [email protected], 701-328-5313
- Kim Schmidt, Communications Manager: [email protected], 701-328-2532
Common Questions
- Are North Dakota counties really sanctuary jurisdictions? Sheriffs say no, pointing to ongoing cooperation with ICE and lack of clear communication from DHS.
- What are the risks of 287(g) agreements? Legal risks include possible racial profiling and civil rights violations, along with increased fear in immigrant communities.
- What happens if HB1585 is enacted? Local officers would be required to report undocumented immigrants to ICE, with penalties for not doing so.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
The situation in North Dakota shows how immigration enforcement has become a complex and often political issue. North Dakota sheriffs are calling for a focus on public safety and community trust, not politics. As the debate continues over sanctuary jurisdictions, 287(g) agreements, and new state laws, the practical effects will be felt by law enforcement, immigrant communities, and the public at large.
For those seeking more information or needing help, reaching out to local sheriff’s offices or the North Dakota Department of Commerce’s Office of Legal Immigration can provide guidance. The debate over immigration enforcement is far from over, and staying informed is key for everyone involved.
Learn Today
Sanctuary Jurisdiction → A locality limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often refusing to detain or share information with ICE.
287(g) Agreements → Contracts empowering local officers to perform immigration enforcement duties under ICE supervision, mainly within jails.
ICE → U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws.
Detainer → A request from ICE asking local authorities to hold a person for immigration enforcement purposes.
HB1585 → A North Dakota bill proposing mandatory reporting of undocumented immigrants by all peace officers.
This Article in a Nutshell
North Dakota sheriffs oppose the sanctuary jurisdiction label, citing ongoing federal cooperation. Meanwhile, immigration enforcement tensions escalate with 287(g) agreements and HB1585, raising debate on community trust, legal risks, and law enforcement workload amid evolving immigration policies and political pressure.
— By VisaVerge.com
