Gov. Greg Abbott approved Texas Senate Bill 8 last June, which mandates each Texas county that operates a jail to authorize police officers to enforce federal immigration law in coordination with ICE. The bill went into effect Jan. 1, and police departments have until Dec. 1 to formally enter into an agreement. This bill not only runs the risk of increasing racial profiling, but will likely diminish public trust.
There are three main models that counties can follow when entering into immigration law enforcement agreements — otherwise known as 287(g) agreements: the Jail Enforcement Model, the Task Force Model and the Warrant Service Officer program. These models range in intensity, but all serve the purpose of amplifying the administration’s campaign to identify and remove undocumented individuals.
The Jail Enforcement Model allows officers to identify and process “removable aliens” with criminal or pending criminal charges, who are arrested by state or local law enforcement. The Task Force Model lets officers enforce immigration authority. The Warrant Service Officer program allows ICE to train, certify and authorize law enforcement officers to execute administrative warrants on undocumented immigrants in their agency’s jail.
While the ICE website claims the program enhances the safety of our nation by identifying and removing “criminal aliens who are amenable to removal,” this has largely not been the case. As of September 2025, immigrants with no criminal record are the largest group in U.S. immigration detention. The status of being undocumented in the U.S. is not a crime, but rather a civil infraction.
As of Jan. 5, around 160 Texas counties have active 287(g) agreements. According to the bill itself, all sheriffs who enter ICE agreements will devote the necessary resources, including staff and funding, to “ensure the proper implementation of the agreement, including the resources necessary to meet any reasonable objectives for enforcement.” Nowhere in the legislation does it specify what constitutes a “reasonable objective,” nor does it limit what authority may be granted through the program. The vague terminology could be used to legally authorize state officers to conduct enforcement actions they were never intended to do.
“This language suggest(s) that once (the counties) enter into this agreement with the federal government, whatever it takes, (they’re) going to do it,” said Michael Sierra-Arévalo, associate director of the Liberal Arts Honors program. “I question the constitutionality of that sort of language. Even if we assume that it’s constitutional, the notion that sheriff’s departments will enter into some agreement with very vague objectives, and suddenly they are mandated by law to provide personnel, equipment and funds which were not allocated prior to that agreement to be used for those things. … That gives me tremendous pause.”
While proponents of the bill may argue that it minimizes federal burden and helps create a uniform immigration response, the bill gives no specifications to what training, costs or authority will be expected. Instead, the bill refers unclearly to these variables as decided under the requirement. Because there is a lack of transparent direction, it’s likely that cooperation will not be standardized. The absence of uniform training, in tandem with a lack of realistic oversight, leaves the door open to an increase in racial profiling. This has been a well-documented issue, with ICE agents arresting individuals without warrants or probable cause because they identified them to “look” Latino.
Moreover, a 2022 report found around two-thirds of law enforcement agencies participating in 287(g) agreements have recorded patterns of racial profiling and other civil rights violations.
“At this point, it’s not about enforcing the law. It’s basically legalized crime. Things are only going to get worse when you allow racial profiling into an institution that’s supposed to be helping people,” government sophomore Arion Moore said.
Forcing local police departments to cooperate with ICE only worsens the fear many Latinx communities are currently dealing with. ICE has not only detained noncriminal undocumented individuals, but has stopped, harassed and arrested multiple U.S. citizens.
As the Trump administration has reduced internal watchdog systems that would keep ICE accountable, there is a growing lack of authoritative oversight over the agency. For the Texas Legislature to approve SB 8, and provide zero guidelines as to what is or is not appropriate when making required deals with ICE, is severely shortsighted misjudgment. As it stands, SB 8 will contribute to the growing number of officers legally authorized to question and detain suspected undocumented immigrants, while not instituting any safeguards to protect against racial profiling.
Gray is an anthropology, government and philosophy junior from Baytown, Texas.
