On a day when tear gas was dispersed in Minnesota, two U.S. citizens were killed by federal agents. Renee Good and Alex Pretti. They were not undocumented immigrants, but U.S. citizens present at the scene of the raids. Good was shot inside a vehicle, and Pretti was shot while filming the scene and shielding a fallen woman. Operation Metro Surge, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called “the largest in history,” began in December 2025 in the Twin Cities and expanded throughout Minnesota. Federal agents threw protesters to the ground, dispersed tear gas near schools, and pulled people from vehicles. Two-thirds of Americans responded in an NPR/PBS/Marist poll that ICE had “gone too far.” Perhaps because of this, the nature of the raids has changed somewhat. It has not disappeared, however. It has changed form. Instead of visible federal agents, local police officers conducting traffic stops are increasingly on the front lines of immigration enforcement. CNN reported that border czar Tom Homan's Minnesota strategy will spread nationwide. The new motto is “reduce visibility, but widen the net.” This shift is not merely a change in tactics. It is a structural reorganization that shifts the cost and responsibility of immigration enforcement from the federal to the local level. And the key tool in that reorganization is a 30-year-old program called 287(g).
135 to 1,637
The 287(g) program is a system established by the Immigration and Nationality Act amendments of 1996. It is an agreement where the federal government delegates some immigration enforcement authority to state and local law enforcement agencies, allowing local police officers or jail officials to verify the immigration status of arrested individuals, notify ICE, or extend their detention. Although the program has existed for 30 years since its enactment, participating agencies have remained few for most administrations. The Obama administration reduced the program due to concerns about racial profiling, and the Biden administration has done the same. Around late 2020, toward the end of President Trump's first term, there were approximately 150 287(g) agreements nationwide. By late January 2025, toward the end of the Biden administration, this number decreased to 135.
However, right now, that number is 1,637. As of April 8, 2026, ICE has signed 1,637 Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with 39 states and 2 U.S. territories. It's not just the numbers that have grown. In the past, it was mostly county sheriff's offices that participated in 287(g), but now 53%of participating agencies are city police departments. The nexus of immigration enforcement has moved from jails and detention facilities to streets and neighborhoods. This is the qualitative change that the difference between 135 and 1,637 represents. It means that police officers who stop someone for a traffic violation, respond to a noise complaint, or go to a domestic violence scene now have the authority to check the immigration status of the driver or individuals involved and notify ICE if they suspect an issue. There are three types of 287(g). These are Jail Enforcement MOA (JEM), Workplace Support MOA (WSO), and Task Force MOA (TFM). Currently, TFM agreements, signed by 980 agencies, are the most numerous, meaning enforcement outside of jails. In other words, immigration enforcement on the streets is spreading the fastest. There are 171 JEM agreements, which operate at the jail level, 486 WSO agreements, which operate at workplaces, and 980 TFM agreements, which operate on the streets. The current reality is that these three layers of nets are operating simultaneously across 39 states and 2 U.S. territories nationwide.
The speed of this diffusion is staggering. In 2025 alone, over 1,100 new agreements were signed. Even on a conservative estimate, ICE could pay between $1.4 billion and $2 billion to 287(g) participating agencies by mid-2026. The lure of federal funding is accelerating local law enforcement agencies' participation. For small police departments struggling financially, federal grants are an offer too good to refuse. The federal support for 287(g) participation is comprehensive, covering equipment purchases, personnel costs, and even overtime pay. St. Charles County, Missouri, formally entered into a 287(g) agreement in March of this year, and Hazleton, Pennsylvania, has an agreement where its city police support ICE agents. New agencies are joining every month. When a local police chief signs onto 287(g), it essentially gives every police officer in their jurisdiction immigration enforcement powers. The signature of one chief effectively transforms hundreds of police officers into de facto immigration enforcement agents.
National spread of the Texas model
Texas is at the forefront of this shift. Senate Bill 8 (SB8), effective January 1, 2026, mandates sheriffs in Texas counties with populations exceeding 100,000 to apply for the 287(g) program. This is a legal requirement, not a voluntary participation. As a result, hundreds of Texas sheriffs have entered into agreements with ICE simultaneously. The Texas Observer reports that the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), an expansive statewide law enforcement organization, is effectively acting as ICE agents. Texas's choice is not simply a state policy; it represents the first instance of state-level systemic internalization of federal immigration law enforcement, and DHS is recommending it as a best practice to other states.
Florida has followed a similar path. State legislation banning so-called “sanctuary cities” effectively forces local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g).
Some states are also moving in the opposite direction. New Mexico, Maine, and Maryland have passed legislation banning 287(g) participation from late 2025 to 2026. They join six states that already prohibited participation. Within Texas, the Houston City Council passed an ordinance in April of this year prohibiting police officers from detaining individuals based on civil immigration warrants or extending traffic stops. This shows a division in stances on immigration enforcement even within the same state. This map is not simply a conservative versus progressive distinction. Stances are determined by law enforcement priorities, the relationship between federal and local governments, and the composition of local communities. Sheriffs in areas reliant on agricultural labor and mayors of large cities with significant immigrant populations will have different calculations regarding 287(g), even if they belong to the same political party. Consequently, the map of immigration enforcement in the U.S. is fragmenting not at the state level, but at the county or even city level. It is becoming a reality that in the same state, one city may operate under 287(g) while its neighboring city prohibits it.
“Invisible Crackdown”
Following the Minnesota incident, NPR described ICE's strategic shift as a “turn toward quiet crackdowns.” CNN reported that Tom Homan's Minnesota strategy would be replicated nationwide. The key is to lower visibility. Instead of dozens of federal agents blocking off streets, local police officers check immigration status during their routine duties. While there are no scenes for news cameras to capture, the net of enforcement widens.
There are practical calculations in this transition. ICE agents are limited in number. However, when local police forces in 1,637 jurisdictions become an extension of ICE through 287(g), the enforcement personnel effectively increase exponentially. ICE itself calls this structure a “force multiplier,” a term Fwd.us has critically analyzed. It's a structural change that enables much broader enforcement with limited federal resources. While ICE agents in Minnesota might have been tracked by whistleblowers and surveillance, local police are already present in the daily lives of communities. The essence of this transition is that police, who were once the people community members turned to for help rather than surveillance targets, become instruments of immigration enforcement. When ICE fired tear gas in front of a school in Minnesota, it sparked national outrage, but it doesn't make news when a police officer asks for immigration status while issuing a traffic ticket. Invisible enforcement doesn't make headlines, so it is also free from public pressure.
The problem lies in the unintended consequences of this structure. When trust in local police erodes within immigrant communities, crime reporting and cooperation with investigations decline. One researcher interviewed by St. Louis Public Radio (STLPR) presented data showing a significant decrease in reported crimes by Hispanic victims in areas participating in 287(g), pointing out the paradox that 287(g)'s stated goal of public safety actually undermines it. The ACLU released a report indicating an increase in racial profiling in areas participating in 287(g), presenting data that drivers with Hispanic appearances are disproportionately stopped during traffic enforcement. This raises concerns that 287(g) is not only a tool for immigration enforcement but also a conduit for institutionalizing racial bias.
What the Korean community needs to know
New York and New Jersey maintain sanctuary city policies, limiting direct cooperation between local police and ICE compared to other states. However, this does not guarantee safety. Even without 287(g) agreements, federal ICE agents conduct independent enforcement operations within sanctuary cities. Within New York State itself, some counties oppose sanctuary city policies and are independently strengthening their cooperation with ICE. Suffolk County on Long Island and some counties in upstate New York are prime examples. Therefore, the assumption that “I am safe because I live in New York” may no longer be accurate.
What should truly be guarded against is routine contact. Traffic tickets, court appearances, visits to the immigration office, or inquiries at the police station – these are all moments that can trigger an immigration status check in this era. Koreans working or traveling in areas participating in 287(g) need to exercise even greater caution. Many Koreans working in nail salons, restaurants, and laundromats are employed outside of New York and New Jersey, and it is crucial to verify in advance whether these areas fall under the jurisdiction of 287(g) participating agencies. You can find a list of participating agencies on the official ICE website (ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g). The rights to remain silent and to request an attorney are guaranteed regardless of immigration status upon arrest, and there is no obligation to allow ICE into your residence without a warrant. Being aware of these rights in advance is the first step toward practical self-protection.
The uniforms have just changed. Instead of federal agents in ICE vests, officers in local police uniforms ask the same questions. Tear gas in Minnesota made headlines, but immigration checks during traffic stops do not. That’s precisely the point of this strategy. The less visible the crackdown, the less resistance, and the weaker the public outcry. The increase in 287(g) agreements from 135 to 1,637 is not just a number; it signals a paradigm shift in immigration enforcement. The era of visible fear is fading, and the era of surveillance woven into everyday life is dawning. Recognizing this shift is the first step in preparing for it. The next step is to develop the ability to see the invisible. Know whether the police in your community have 287(g) agreements, whether they can ask about immigration status during traffic stops, and whether you are legally obligated to answer such questions. For the record, you have no constitutional obligation to answer police questions about your immigration status. The right to remain silent is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, even if you are not a citizen. That is how to live in the age of the invisible.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin Dong Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009
