Should Michigan local governments cooperate with ICE enforcement operations?
The Trump administration's 2025 immigration enforcement surge has put Michigan local governments in the middle of a federal-local conflict. Kent County Sheriff's Office operates a 287(g) agreement allowing deputies to enforce federal immigration law. Grand Rapids city government does not. The divide is real and consequential.
Overview
287(g) agreements allow local law enforcement agencies to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions under ICE supervision. Kent County Sheriff's Office signed a 287(g) Jail Model agreement in 2017, which authorizes deputies to screen inmates for immigration status and lodge ICE detainers against those who are removable. As of 2024, Kent County had lodged approximately 340 detainers annually under the program.
The City of Grand Rapids does not participate in 287(g) and the Grand Rapids Police Department has a policy of not asking about immigration status during routine stops or responding to civil immigration detainers. The Grand Rapids City Commission passed a resolution reaffirming this policy in 2017 and again in 2025.
The distinction matters practically: Kent County's program operates at the county jail (post-arrest), while Grand Rapids' policy governs street-level GRPD conduct. A person arrested by GRPD and booked into the Kent County Jail could be screened under the 287(g) agreement regardless of GRPD's own policy.
Michigan has an estimated 100,000–130,000 undocumented residents (Migration Policy Institute, 2023), concentrated in Southeast Michigan, West Michigan agricultural communities (meatpacking, dairy, produce), and urban neighborhoods including Grand Rapids' Westside.
What Happened
January 2025: Trump administration signed executive orders directing maximum enforcement of civil immigration law and reinstating Remain in Mexico (MPP) policy. DHS announced it would prioritize 287(g) partnerships with local agencies. ICE enforcement operations in West Michigan increased significantly in Q1 2025.
February 2025: Several high-profile immigration enforcement operations in Kent County drew community protests. A meatpacking facility in the Holland area was the site of a worksite enforcement action. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel challenged the constitutionality of certain enforcement tactics in federal court.
March 2025: Grand Rapids City Commission reaffirmed its non-participation policy 5–2. Commissioner debate centered on whether the policy was legally defensible against potential federal funding threats (Trump administration threatened to withhold grants to "sanctuary" jurisdictions).
April 2025: Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development issued guidance to agricultural employers on workers' rights during immigration enforcement operations.
Source: ICE — 287(g) Program
Source: Grand Rapids City Commission
The Debate
- Federal immigration law is federal law — local government agencies funded by federal grants should not nullify it through non-enforcement policies
- 287(g) programs target the county jail, not street-level enforcement — people screened have already been arrested for other offenses
- Sanctuary policies create a patchwork that incentivizes illegal entry and undermines the integrity of the legal immigration system
- Kent County Sheriff is accountable to elected county voters — the program reflects the expressed preference of the jurisdiction
- DOJ and academic research consistently shows that communities where immigrants fear police have lower crime reporting rates — sanctuary policies make everyone safer by encouraging victims and witnesses to cooperate
- West Michigan's agricultural, dairy, and meatpacking industries depend on immigrant labor — enforcement disrupts supply chains and food production
- 287(g) jail programs have documented civil rights violations in other jurisdictions; Kent County has paid out civil settlements related to wrongful detainers
- Civil immigration detainers are civil, not criminal, matters — local law enforcement agencies should not be required to detain people for civil violations without compensation or legal authority
What to Watch
- Federal funding threats: Trump administration has threatened to withhold federal law enforcement grants from non-cooperating jurisdictions. Grand Rapids and Kent County are both evaluating legal exposure. Court injunctions have blocked some withholding efforts.
- Michigan AG litigation: AG Nessel has filed suit challenging federal enforcement tactics. Case status: pending in federal district court as of Q1 2026.
- Kent County 287(g) renewal: The 287(g) agreement is reviewed annually. Sheriff Dan Leaf's office has indicated intent to renew; community organizations are organizing public comment.
- Agricultural labor impact: West Michigan producers are documenting labor shortages attributable to enforcement; Michigan Farm Bureau is engaged in Washington on agricultural worker visa reform.
Source: Michigan Attorney General
Should Michigan local governments cooperate with ICE enforcement operations?
Yes — local law enforcement should support federal immigration law
No — sanctuary policies protect public safety by ensuring all residents can report crimes without fear
Stay updated
Get primary-source coverage of this debate delivered to your inbox.