(KANSAS) Kansas’s role in federal immigration enforcement is expanding in 2025, as more local agencies sign formal agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the federal 287(g) program. Through these agreements, sheriff’s offices, police departments, and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation are allowed to act as federal partners, identifying and holding noncitizens for possible deportation from jails across the state. Supporters say the move targets people with serious criminal records. Civil rights groups warn it will pull local officers into federal immigration work, strain trust with immigrant communities, and increase the risk of wrongful arrests and racial profiling.

New statewide agreement: KBI and DHS

In February 2025, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach announced that the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI), the state’s top investigative agency, had signed a formal agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to assist ICE.

• Under that deal, a limited group of KBI agents will receive federal training and gain authority to:
  • arrest people who are in the country without legal status,
  • serve immigration warrants,
  • issue immigration detainers that ask local jails to hold someone for up to 48 hours until ICE can take custody.

The KBI agreement makes Kansas one of the first states to deputize a statewide investigative agency in this way.

Local law enforcement: growing 287(g) participation

At the same time, county sheriffs and local police departments are expanding cooperation with ICE through different models of the 287(g) program.

• The Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office, which runs one of the state’s largest jails, has joined 19 other Kansas agencies in signing 287(g) agreements.
• Under the warrant service officer model now used in Sedgwick County:
  • Deputies who complete about four hours of ICE training can issue 48‑hour detainers on people already in county custody.
  • Those detainers give ICE extra time to decide whether to start deportation proceedings against someone the county would otherwise release.

Three enforcement models used in Kansas

Different Kansas agencies are using different versions of 287(g), creating a patchwork of enforcement approaches.

• The task force model is more intensive: officers spend about six weeks in federal training and then work alongside federal agents with broader powers.
• The jail enforcement model focuses on screening people already in custody and holding detainees for ICE when matches appear.

Arguments in favor of expanded cooperation

Supporters and selected officials make several arguments for signing 287(g) agreements:

• They say the agreements help remove what they describe as criminal illegal aliens from local communities, especially repeat offenders who cycle through county jails.
• Formal cooperation, they argue, clarifies roles and responsibilities, sets out training standards, and provides a clear legal basis for actions that were occurring informally in some jurisdictions.

Concerns from civil rights groups and community advocates

Civil rights advocates and community organizations offer counterpoints and raise serious concerns.

• The ACLU of Kansas emphasizes that simply living in the country without legal status is a civil violation, not a crime, and that local officers are not required by federal law to enforce immigration rules.
• The group points to national cases where 287(g) implementation has, in their view:
  • led to racial profiling of Latino drivers,
  • produced extended jail stays based only on immigration suspicion,
  • resulted in arrests of people with no serious criminal history.

Community groups warn the agreements could make immigrant families less willing to report crimes or cooperate with police:

• When the same officer who responds to a domestic violence call or traffic accident can also trigger an immigration hold, people without legal status—and mixed‑status families—may decide it is safer not to call police.
• That fear can affect U.S.‑born children and legal permanent residents, especially in neighborhoods where extended families live together and some relatives lack immigration papers.
• Local chiefs and sheriffs must balance these community concerns against pressure from state officials to cooperate more closely with ICE.

Key takeaway: expanded 287(g) participation can increase public safety risks by reducing trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, according to advocates.

Legal and financial implications for counties and the state

Formal 287(g) agreements raise several legal and fiscal questions:

• While ICE provides training and access to federal databases, local governments bear much of the cost for:
  • housing detainees longer under immigration holds, and
  • potential legal defense costs if people sue over wrongful detention.
• Past lawsuits in other states have argued that holding someone on an ICE detainer without a judge’s warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment.
• That litigation history has led some counties elsewhere to step back from 287(g) agreements, even as Kansas moves ahead with new or expanded partnerships.

Federal framing and local variation

In official materials, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security describe the 287(g) program as a way to focus limited federal resources on people who pose threats to public safety.

• ICE stresses that local officers remain under their own chain of command even when acting with federal authority.
• The agency also notes that agreements can be ended by either side.

For Kansas residents, the day‑to‑day impact will depend heavily on location:

• Whether a traffic stop or minor arrest leads to an immigration detainer can vary dramatically by county.
• Enforcement consequences in a 287(g) county may be very different from those in a county that has not signed an agreement.

What to watch as agreements take effect

Debate over these policies is likely to grow as the 2025 agreements move from paper into practice in Kansas jails and on the streets.

Lawmakers may face demands for data on:

1. who is held under immigration authority,
2. how long detainees remain in custody, and
3. what kinds of offenses are most common among those held.

For immigrant families, lawyers, and local leaders, those numbers will shape the next round of arguments over Kansas’s role in federal enforcement.