Six New York Counties and One Village Sign 287(g) Deals with ICE

(NEW YORK) Seven law enforcement agencies across six counties and one village in New York now have ICE 287(g) cooperation agreements in place, a rapid expansion that has reshaped the state’s immigration enforcement landscape over the past year. As of August 24, 2025, Madison, Broome, Nassau, Niagara, and Rensselaer counties—plus the Village of Camden in Oneida County—have signed on, adding New York to a nationwide surge in local-federal partnerships for immigration enforcement. Supporters say the agreements improve public safety by targeting people with criminal records or deportation orders; critics warn they will harm community trust, increase detentions for minor offenses, and separate families.

The 287(g) program allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to “deputize” certain local officers to carry out limited federal immigration functions after ICE training and supervision. In New York, the expansion has unfolded through different models that shape how police and sheriffs interact with noncitizens in jails, during patrols, and in routine investigations.

While the agreements are legal contracts with ICE, they also function as policy signals about how counties choose to engage with immigration enforcement within the United States 🇺🇸. The changes arrive amid a broader political push for stricter enforcement following President Trump’s renewed focus on immigration measures and public order.

Where the agreements are in place

Current participation spans rural, suburban, and upstate regions, with each locality adopting a specific 287(g) model:

• Madison County: The sheriff signed a Warrant Service Officer (WSO) agreement on July 2, 2025, letting deputies serve ICE administrative warrants and hold people for ICE pickup inside county facilities. Sheriff Todd Hood’s move sparked a countywide debate after residents voiced concern about impacts on families and farm labor.
• Broome County: The sheriff’s office renewed a Jail Enforcement Model (JEM) agreement in 2025, allowing certain jail staff to question people in custody about immigration status and issue holds linked to ICE detainers.
• Nassau County: The police department expanded to the Task Force Model in 2025, the most far-reaching approach. Ten detectives trained by ICE can now enforce immigration law while on patrol or conducting investigations, according to local officials.
• Niagara County: The sheriff’s office signed two new agreements in May 2025, broadening coverage in Western New York. Details on the scope of activities have not been fully public.
• Rensselaer County: The sheriff’s office renewed its Jail Enforcement Model in 2025. Rensselaer was the first county in New York to join 287(g), signing in 2018.
• Village of Camden (Oneida County): The only village in New York with an agreement, Camden joined in 2025 under the Warrant Service Officer model.

Local authorization rules vary. In Madison County, Board of Supervisors Chairman James Cunningham confirmed Sheriff Hood had authority to sign without board approval, even as public meetings drew sharp criticism and questions about costs, training, and oversight. Congressman John Mannion (NY-22) called the Madison County move “highly unusual” and warned that 287(g) could hurt families and the local economy.

What the models allow on the ground

New York’s 287(g) participation splits into three distinct frameworks, each changing daily police work in different ways:

• Warrant Service Officer (WSO)
  • Deputizes local officers to serve ICE administrative warrants inside jails.
  • Officers mainly act on paperwork and holds and do not conduct immigration interviews.
  • Model used by Madison County and the Village of Camden.
• Jail Enforcement Model (JEM)
  • Trained jail staff can question people in custody about immigration status, check records, and issue immigration holds that may delay release until ICE decides on pickup.
  • Applies in Broome, Rensselaer, and at least one of Niagara’s agreements.
• Task Force Model
  • Local officers can take immigration enforcement actions during patrols and investigations, not only inside jails.
  • Nassau County uses this approach; it is currently the most expansive model in New York.

In practice, the agreements can extend the time a person spends in custody, even after local charges are resolved, because jail staff may place a hold for ICE to review the case. People stopped for minor offenses—like a broken taillight or expired registration—could be flagged if the encounter leads to a records check and arrest, depending on the model and local policies.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the Task Force Model tends to have the widest day-to-day effect because it enables immigration actions outside the jail setting during routine policing.

Supporters’ arguments

• Closer work with ICE removes people with criminal histories or prior removal orders.
• Helps police tackle transnational gangs and serious crimes through faster information sharing.
• Officials in Nassau say ICE training for detectives improves coordination with federal partners on major crimes.

Critics’ concerns

• The agreements may harm public safety by pushing immigrant families away from police.
• Cases in other states show victims and witnesses sometimes avoid reporting crimes for fear of deportation risk.
• Organizations such as the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights warn of a potential “human rights crisis” from increased family separations and arrests tied to low-level offenses.
• In farm-heavy areas like Madison County, growers fear labor shortages if migrant workers avoid public life, skip health visits, or leave the region.

The friction shows up in everyday decisions: a parent afraid to report wage theft, a tenant avoiding a safety complaint, or a delivery driver skipping a court date—each choice can ripple through neighborhoods. When trust dips, both victims and officers may lose.

Political backdrop and what comes next

New York’s expansion follows a national pattern of rising 287(g) participation. According to ICE, the agency had signed 896 agreements across 40 states as of August 22, 2025. ICE posts a current roster of participating agencies and program details on its official website at https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g.

The Markup and TRAC Reports have documented the spread into counties far from the southern border, noting how local politics, jail capacity, and staffing shape where agreements land. Policy writers at City Journal describe a widening divide inside New York: upstate and certain suburban departments increasingly engage with ICE, while New York City and some downstate localities maintain strong sanctuary rules.

National politics play a clear role. Advocates for expansion link New York’s 2025 growth to President Trump’s renewed enforcement push. Local leaders who signed 287(g) this year often cited public safety, repeat offenders with prior removal orders, or gang-related cases as reasons to join. Opponents counter that the program pulls local officers into federal work at the expense of community policing and argue there is little evidence 287(g) reduces crime rates.

Budget and staffing questions also linger: deputies and detectives trained by ICE spend time on federal duties, which may reduce local coverage unless officials backfill positions.

Legislative and legal responses

• State lawmakers are weighing the “New York for All Act,” which would bar local police and sheriffs from helping with civil immigration enforcement. As of August 2025, the bill had not passed.
• Civil rights groups have filed lawsuits challenging how some New York agreements were authorized and how they are implemented in jails and on the street.
• Several cases question whether local officers can detain people for extra time based solely on ICE paperwork, especially if local charges are minor or dismissed.

What this means for residents

Immediate impact depends on the locality and the model in use:

• WSO counties (Madison, Camden)
  • People already in custody are most affected; deputies can serve ICE warrants and hold them for pickup.
  • Street-level interactions change less than in other models.
• JEM counties (Broome, Rensselaer)
  • People booked into jail—even after minor arrests—face a higher chance of immigration questioning and holds.
• Task Force settings (Nassau)
  • Immigration checks can occur during patrols and investigations, casting a broader net across daily policing.

Community groups in several counties are hosting “know your rights” sessions that focus on:
– How to respond to police questions
– The difference between an administrative ICE warrant and a judicial warrant
– How to request an attorney if detained

Farm owners and small businesses report uncertainty about hiring and retention, fearing skilled workers may relocate. County executives say they will measure results by tracking arrests tied to serious crimes and prioritizing cases involving threats to public safety.

Niagara County’s two agreements—signed in May 2025—highlight an information gap that often fuels debate. With limited public details on scope and training, residents and advocacy groups have pressed the sheriff for clarity on traffic stops, data sharing, and complaint procedures. The department says it will follow federal rules and focus on people who pose risks, but opponents want contracts and training materials made public.

Rensselaer County’s 2018 deal, renewed in 2025, provides a longer record for both sides to cite. Supporters argue the jail-focused model has helped remove people with serious charges while keeping patrol officers on local priorities. Critics point to cases where ICE detainers held people beyond local release times or involved arrests for nonviolent offenses.

Broader outlook

• According to ICE and county officials, more sheriffs and municipal leaders have inquired about training and costs; some are exploring narrower steps such as information-sharing agreements.
• Opponents are pushing county legislatures to pass local limits on participation and to require public votes before any new 287(g) commitments.
• VisaVerge.com reports that in several upstate communities, public meetings have become standing-room-only, with residents divided over safety concerns, labor needs, and the role of local police in federal work.

For now, the patchwork will define how immigration enforcement looks from county to county. Families traveling across New York could face very different outcomes after the same minor traffic stop, depending on the badge on the patrol car and the fine print in a 287(g) contract. Until state lawmakers act—or courts set new limits—those local cooperation agreements will continue to steer the day-to-day reality of immigration enforcement far from the border.