Texas Lawmaker and Lieutenant Governor Candidate Demands Comprehensive Review of State’s ICE Cooperation

A pivotal debate over immigration enforcement and local-police collaboration is unfolding in Texas. State Representative Vikki Goodwin (D-Austin), who is also a candidate for lieutenant governor, has formally called for a thorough legislative evaluation of Texas’s partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Her request specifically targets the continuation and expansion of 287(g) agreements, which deputize local law enforcement officers to perform federal immigration duties. This move places a spotlight on the balance between state sovereignty, federal immigration authority, and community trust in policing.

Introduction: The Political and Policy Crossroads

The intersection of state and federal power in immigration enforcement is a perennial source of political tension. In Texas, a state with a long border and a significant immigrant population, this tension is particularly acute. Representative Goodwin’s demand for a review comes amid heightened national scrutiny of ICE tactics and a polarized political climate where immigration is a top-tier issue. Her dual role as a sitting lawmaker and a candidate for statewide office amplifies the request, transforming it from a routine oversight matter into a clear campaign platform item. The core question she poses is whether Texas’s current framework for cooperating with ICE serves the interests of public safety, constitutional rights, and effective governance, or if it requires fundamental recalibration.

Key Points: Understanding the Debate

At the heart of this issue are several interconnected policy mechanisms and political arguments. The following points distill the essential components of the controversy:

• The 287(g) Program: A federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)) that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state or local law enforcement agencies, authorizing designated officers to perform immigration enforcement functions, including investigating, detaining, and processing individuals for potential removal.
• Goodwin’s Stated Concerns: Rep. Goodwin has cited specific tactics by ICE—including home raids, the detention of U.S. citizens, and deportations—as evidence that the partnership is flawed and requires urgent review. She argues these actions erode community trust and jeopardize public safety.
• The Legislative Request: The call is for the Texas Legislature to formally evaluate the efficacy, cost, and civil liberties implications of all ICE cooperation agreements, with a specific focus on mandating or encouraging local jurisdictions to enter into 287(g) agreements.
• Political Context: This is not an isolated policy critique. It is part of a broader, national debate between “sanctuary” jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE and states like Texas that have passed laws (e.g., SB 4, 2017) *requiring* local officials to honor ICE detainers and assist in immigration enforcement, with penalties for non-compliance.
• Campaign Dynamics: As a candidate for lieutenant governor, Goodwin is framing this as a matter of accountability and conservative government oversight—a review of a costly, potentially ineffective, and controversial state-federal partnership.

Background: The Legal and Historical Framework

The Genesis of 287(g) Agreements

Enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, Section 287(g) was designed to create a “force multiplier” for ICE. Faced with limited resources, the federal government sought to leverage the manpower and local presence of police departments to identify and detain immigration violators. Under a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), local officers receive training and supervision from ICE, and their actions are considered to be conducted under federal authority, theoretically shielding them from state-law limitations.

Texas’s Embrace of Cooperative Enforcement

Texas has been a leading adopter of robust ICE cooperation. Following the 2017 legislative session, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) became law. This controversial statute:

• Banned “sanctuary” policies in Texas.
• Required all local jails to honor ICE detainers (requests to hold individuals beyond their release date for ICE pickup).
• Allowed local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status during any lawful detention.
• Imposed civil fines and potential removal from office on officials who adopted non-cooperation policies.

While SB 4 does not explicitly mandate 287(g) agreements, it created a legal environment that strongly incentivizes and expects full cooperation. Several Texas counties, including Harris, Tarrant, and Collin, have active 287(g) agreements, deputizing jail deputies and, in some cases, patrol officers.

The Federal Detainer Controversy

A critical, related issue is the ICE detainer (Form I-247). These are requests, not judicial warrants, asking local jails to hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their release. Critics, including many legal scholars and police chiefs, argue that honoring detainers without a judicial warrant exposes jurisdictions to false imprisonment lawsuits and violates the Fourth Amendment. Several federal courts have ruled against prolonged detentions based solely on ICE detainers. This legal vulnerability is a key point in the argument for reviewing these partnerships.

Analysis: Weighing the Arguments and Implications

The Case for Continued/Expanded Cooperation (Pro-287(g) Position)

Proponents of the current model, including most Texas Republican leaders and the ICE agency itself, advance several arguments:

• Public Safety: They argue that removing criminal non-citizens enhances community safety. The 287(g) program, they contend, allows local police to identify and remove individuals who have committed crimes beyond immigration violations.
• Rule of Law: Enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress is framed as a fundamental duty. State and local cooperation is presented as fulfilling this national obligation.
• Operational Efficiency: ICE lacks the personnel to police the interior of the U.S. alone. 287(g) officers provide critical local intelligence and presence.
• Deterrence: The knowledge that local police are trained in immigration enforcement is argued to deter illegal entry and re-entry after deportation.

The Case for Review and Restriction (Goodwin’s Position and Critics)

Critics, including Rep. Goodwin, civil rights groups, and some police associations, present a starkly different assessment:

• Erosion of Trust: The primary argument is that when local police are perceived as immigration agents, immigrant communities—including victims and witnesses—are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with investigations, ultimately making *all* communities less safe.
• Constitutional and Legal Risks: As noted, detainer practices have led to costly lawsuits and constitutional challenges. 287(g) officers, they argue, may not have sufficient expertise to navigate complex immigration law, leading to erroneous arrests or detentions of U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
• Resource Misallocation: Critics question whether local police resources should be diverted to federal immigration duties, which do not typically address state-level crimes like burglary, assault, or DWI.
• Questionable Efficacy: Studies and audits, including a 2010 DHS Office of Inspector General report, have questioned the program’s cost-effectiveness and its focus on low-level offenders versus serious criminals. The program’s impact on overall illegal immigration rates is also debated.
• Moral and Humanitarian Concerns: The tactics cited by Goodwin—home raids, family separations, deportations of long-term residents—are framed as inhumane and counterproductive to community stability.

Political and Fiscal Realities

Any legislative review in Texas must navigate a deeply Republican-controlled legislature that has consistently supported SB 4 and tough-on-immigration policies. The fiscal implications are significant: 287(g) agreements require the federal government to cover training and supervision costs, but local agencies bear costs for officer time, equipment, and potential liability. A review would need to produce a clear cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, the debate is inherently nationalized; Texas’s actions are often seen as a counterpoint to policies in states like California, creating a patchwork of enforcement that complicates federal immigration strategy.

Practical Advice: Navigating the Landscape

For Texans, community leaders, and policymakers seeking to engage with this issue constructively, consider the following approaches:

For Concerned Citizens and Advocates:

• Document and Report: If you or someone you know experiences what you believe is an unlawful detention, arrest, or raid involving ICE or a local officer acting under a 287(g) agreement, meticulously document details (badge numbers, time, location, witnesses) and contact organizations like the ACLU of Texas, RAICES, or the Texas Civil Rights Project.
• Engage Locally: Attend county commission or city council meetings where local intergovernmental agreements (including 287(g) MOUs) are discussed or renewed. Public comment periods are crucial.
• Know Your Rights: Regardless of immigration status, individuals have constitutional rights. Resources from the National Immigration Law Center and the American Immigration Lawyers Association provide essential information on rights during encounters with law enforcement.
• Support Trust-Building Initiatives: Advocate for clear, public policies from local police chiefs that separate general community policing from immigration enforcement to encourage reporting of crimes.

For Local Law Enforcement Officials:

• Conduct Transparent Assessments: Sheriffs and police chiefs should independently evaluate the impact of 287(g) participation on their department’s community relations, operational focus, and liability exposure, separate from state political pressure.
• Clarify Protocols: Ensure that deputies and officers understand the precise limits of their authority under the 287(g) MOA and the distinction between a detainer request and a judicial warrant.
• Prioritize Public Safety Mission: Articulate clearly how immigration enforcement duties align with or detract from the core mission of preventing and solving state and local crimes.

For Policymakers and Legislators:

• Mandate Data Collection and Reporting: Any review must be data-driven. Legislation should require detailed, publicly available reporting on 287(g) activities: number of arrests, demographic data of those processed, types of offenses leading to identification, costs incurred, and outcomes (e.g., actual removals).
• Examine Alternatives: Explore models like the “Priority Enforcement Program” (PEP) or focused collaboration on serious felons, which rely on ICE’s own resources and avoid deputizing street patrol officers.
• Address Liability: Clarify in law the indemnification of local officers and jurisdictions for actions taken under 287(g) to manage financial risk.

FAQ: Common Questions About Texas ICE Cooperation

What exactly is a 287(g) agreement?

It is a formal contract between ICE and a local law enforcement agency (like a county sheriff’s office). Under this agreement, after receiving training and being supervised by ICE, designated local officers are authorized to perform certain immigration enforcement functions, such as interviewing individuals about their immigration status, preparing charging documents, and initiating removal proceedings.

Can a local police officer ask me about my immigration status during a traffic stop?

Under Texas law (SB 4), a peace officer may inquire about the immigration status of a person who is lawfully detained or arrested. However, they cannot prolong a detention solely to investigate immigration status if the original reason for the stop has been resolved. The key question is whether the inquiry is reasonably related to the legitimate purpose of the stop.

What is an ICE detainer, and do local jails have to honor it?

An ICE detainer (Form I-247) is a request that a local jail hold an individual for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release so ICE can take them into custody. Under Texas SB 4, local jails are generally required to comply with these detainers. However, several federal courts have ruled that holding someone solely on an ICE detainer without a judicial warrant may violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizure. This creates a legal conflict for jail officials.

Does the 287(g) program make Texas safer?

This is the central debate. Proponents point to the removal of individuals convicted of crimes. Critics argue the program primarily targets low-level offenders and that its net effect on community trust makes policing harder and can actually reduce crime reporting. There is no definitive, universally accepted study proving a direct causal link between 287(g) and reduced overall crime rates.

Can Texas refuse to cooperate with ICE altogether?

No. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal immigration law is supreme. Texas cannot legally pass a law that obstructs federal enforcement. However, the state and its localities have discretion over how *actively* they assist. “Sanctuary” policies typically limit cooperation to what is legally required (e.g., honoring detainers with a warrant) and prohibit proactive immigration enforcement by local police. Texas law (SB 4) has banned such limitations, mandating maximum cooperation.

What would a legislative review likely examine?

A serious review would investigate: 1) The demographic profile of those identified through 287(g) (citizens, legal residents, undocumented; criminal history). 2) The cost to local jurisdictions versus the federal reimbursement. 3) The number of actual removals resulting from local referrals. 4) Data on crime reporting rates in communities with vs. without 287(g). 5) The number and nature of lawsuits or complaints against local agencies stemming from immigration enforcement actions.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Texas Policy

Representative Vikki Goodwin’s call for a legislative review of Texas’s ICE cooperation is more than a partisan talking point; it is a challenge to reassess a two-decade-old policy framework in light of its real-world consequences. The debate forces a confrontation with fundamental questions: What is the proper role of local police in a federal system? How do we balance the enforcement of immigration laws with the imperative of public safety and constitutional rights? And what does “effective” immigration enforcement actually look like?

The path forward requires moving beyond slogans to a rigorous, transparent examination of data, legal risks, and community impact. The outcome of this review, whether it leads to modification, reaffirmation, or the scaling back of programs like 287(g), will significantly shape Texas’s communities, its law enforcement agencies, and its national political identity for years to come. The discussion that Goodwin has initiated is one that Texas, and indeed the nation, must have with clarity, evidence, and a commitment to the principles of justice and effective governance.