St. Lawrence Co. Legislators are considering a resolution to allow the SLC Sheriff to enter into a 287(g) agreement with ICE
- slcnydems
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
From North Country Neighbors for Civic Engagement. This is a long, but important post - please share widely.
What is a 287(g) Agreement?
287(g) Agreements are a contract between law enforcement agencies (LEAs, e.g. county sheriffs, town/village police) and ICE that give LEAs the legal authority to do some of the immigration work that ICE does.
A Little History
287 (g) Agreements have existed since 1996. They were first used in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Here’s a map of where they exist.
Since the start of his second term, Trump has greatly expanded the use of these agreements. But, some communities have terminated the agreements. For example: Bucks County, PA , a politically competitive county, flipped the sheriff's seat in Nov. New sheriff terminated 287 (g) agreement.
Worth asking: Why have these ~30 communities terminated their agreements?
The Devil is In the Details
There are three types or “models” of 287 (g) agreements. Each gives different “powers” to local law enforcement and each comes with different compensation or economic incentive.
· Warrant Service Officer Program
· Jail Enforcement Model
· Task Force Model.
Two different ICE websites give different descriptions of each model. It is worth reading both:
The Task Force Model grants the most expansive powers to local law enforcement. It allows officers to identify and report suspected aliens not charged with crimes (under ICE oversight) and exercise limited immigration authority on ICE-led task forces. The other models also come with concerns.
One concern is the exact meaning and scope of the wording of “in your agency’s custody” versus “in your agency’s jail,” as well as the exact meaning and scope of “who have pending or active criminal charges” versus “who are arrested by State or local law enforcement agencies.”
Semantic details like these can have very big impacts on the ways laws are interpreted and enforced. There is valid concern that current wording of the MOA’s can lead to baseless arrests and other abuses.
*ICE can make changes to the wording of the Agreements and then have participating LEAs sign revised Agreements.
Compensations/Economic Incentives for signing 287(g) MOA’s
This depends on which model(s) local law enforcement is adopting in the MOA. The Task Force Model comes with the most incentives. These are only available for the Task Force Model:
· $7,500 for equipment per trained Task Force Officer
· $100,000 for new vehicles per MOA
· Salary and benefits reimbursed per trained TFO
· Overtime funds up to 25% of salary
Benefits for signing on to the other two models are less clear. According to ICE, they are:
· Enhanced public safety
· Free training
· Possible eligibility for federal payments through government programs*
*The government program is SCAAP. It is a grant program to reimburse state and local jails/prisons for any additional expenses they incur if they provide or rent space to ICE so that ICE can use the local jail space.
What Model(s) is SLC proposing to agree to?
* The wording of the resolution being considered by the SLC Legislature is not clear on this and the Legislators we've contacted are themselves uncertain.
WHEREAS (The WHEREAS section of the resolution explains the rationale/justification of the resolution.) The resolution states:
"WHEREAS, the selected 287(g) model (either Jail Enforcement or Warrant Service Officer) necessitates training and certification for Sheriff's Office personnel…”
"WHEREAS, ICE, as a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has asked to train approved select Sheriff's Office personnel to provide warrant service and/or task force deployment as needed, working strictly under ICE direction and supervision to perform certain limited functions,"
As currently written, it appears that all three models are referred to in the resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED (The legal mechanisms / ramifications of a Resolution are contained in the “Be it Resolved” sections.) The resolution states:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Legislators authorizes the St. Lawrence County Sheriff to enter into a Section 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sheriff is authorized to sign all documents for the execution and implementation of the agreement upon review and approval of the form and contents thereof by the County Attorney, and..."
Thus, the BE IT RESOLVED, the key legal part of the resolution, gives the Sheriff authority to enter into a 287(g) MOA but does not specify or limit which of the three models he agrees to, nor any specific review/end date.
Why Is the County Considering This?
The Resolution states: "WHEREAS, ICE has provided to the County certain terms they have found agreeable to have the Sheriff's/ICE trained employees provide certain functions after said training..."
Exactly what "terms" the County has "found agreeable" have not been made public.
The Chief Deputy Sheriff said, "The reason that we want to sign into this opportunity is because it offers training to our officers on immigration law, multicultural communication, & also training on avoiding racial profiling."
Studies have shown that racial profiling increases in communities with 287(g) agreements. See sources below.
Here are some sources on the negative impacts of 287(g) agreements:
· Concerns for St. Lawrence County (scroll to #8)
· 5 Ways 287(g) agreements hurt our communities (scroll to p.12)
How Can We Respond?
Local Actions:
The County Board of Legislators passed the resolution in committee. But the full Board plans to vote on it at the Board meeting on Monday, Feb. 2, 2026.
Every and all actions matter and none of those listed are mutually exclusive. But, if you can do only one this week, then:
Write to your County Legislators.
Most effective strategy: Write all of them, before the 2/2 board meeting, not just the representative for your district. We have already found this is getting their attention.
In addition to sharing your concerns, ask them to table the resolution so that community questions and concerns can be addressed before voting on it. You can cut and paste the same comment for each legislator. Here's how to contact them with step-by-step instructions to make it easy.
Other Important Local Actions
Submit a Public Comment to be shared with the full Board at the 2/2 meeting. Comments must be submitted 48 hours ahead of time.
Attend the Legislature Board meeting at 6pm on Monday 2/2/2026. 48 Court St, Canton, NY. Only 8x11 sheets of paper are allowed inside (no larger signs).
Sign up to voice your opinion at the 2/2 Board Meeting at 6 pm. Arrive early to sign in to speak. Plan on 3 minutes. Public comment period is 30 minutes total, but this might be extended.
Protest outside the court house prior to the 2/2 Board Meeting. 5pm - 6pm on Monday, Feb 2, outside 48 Court St. in Canton, NY.
Sign this online petition from the Northern NY Coalition asking the board to postpone the vote.
