Ice Intergovernmental Service Agreement

To keep immigrants for ICE, national and local governments enter into agreements with ICE, known as intergovernmental service agreements. These agreements stipulate that ICE pays local government per day for each bed that the local government rents. Some local governments contract with private prison companies to manage their prisons. Last year, a number of California cities and counties terminated their detention contracts following the introduction of a national law prohibiting local governments and law enforcement agencies from entering into new or expanded existing contracts for ICE`s stop beds. It also prohibited any „city, county, city, county or public body“ from granting permission for the construction of such a facility. These were the preconditions for local governments to move completely away from treaties when they were ready to renew them. Launched in May 2019, the Warrant Service Officer Program represents a new development of ICE`s capacity and reach, particularly for smaller communities. Ten municipalities have signed up for the new program in the first month of their existence. For more information on Warrant Service Officer`s current agreements, please visit the ICE website.

The 287 g agreements are contracts between ICE and local law enforcement authorities, which allow local authorities to act as immigration agents on their territory. This includes questioning people about their immigration status and imprisoning people for immigration costs. To better understand these agreements, we analyzed In Our Backyards data from the Vera Institute of Justice, a non-profit organization focused on reforming the U.S. criminal justice system. This dataset contains information on prison and prison populations at the county level over time in the United States. We have also compiled various measures that identify local conditions. Throughout Donald Trump`s presidency, the state of California has been at odds with the government`s immigration policy, from balancing information-sharing agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, to banning new private or extended detention contracts. However, California is just one of several states that have acted against ICE`s detention within its borders and have explicitly refused the Extension of detention by the Trump administration.

Earlier this year, Williamson County, Texas, also formally terminated its contract with a local detention centre, as well as its IGSA agreement with ICE, in part because of local pressure against the detention of more than 500 migrant women in the facility, many of whom had been separated from their children during the implementation of the federal family separation policy. Supporters stepped up women`s reports on sexual abuse and their hunger strike to protest the situation in the centre and urged district commissioners to act. According to the U.S. Office of Inspector General, the prevention of the public tendering process has resulted in „ICE perhaps paying too much for detention services“ and „ICE has no assurance that it executed detention contracts in the best interests of the federal government, taxpayers or inmates.“ These agreements with ICE are increasingly being reviewed and criticized by national supervisors, the media and activists, as ice can avoid the public tendering process and operate without standard procedures required for other federal awards. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency responsible for overseeing and implementing immigration detention measures, devotes much of its detention capacity to national and local governments; Most ICE detention centres are concluded through intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) with localities.