How local police extend ICE's reach, even in sanctuary cities

Summary of How local police extend ICE's reach, even in sanctuary cities

by NPR

39m•January 21, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of How local police extend ICE's reach, even in sanctuary cities (Code Switch — NPR)

This Code Switch episode (host Gene Demby) features anthropologist Peter Mancina (Rutgers Law School), author of On the Side of ICE, Policing Immigrants in a Sanctuary State. It examines how, despite sanctuary policies, local police often enable ICE to locate, detain, and deport immigrants—through legal carve-outs, cooperative programs, policing practices (like crowd control), data sharing, and even body‑worn camera footage. The episode combines a concrete NJ body-cam example, legal/policy history, and analysis of tools (287(g), Secure Communities, administrative warrants, detainer requests) that expand ICE’s reach inside cities and states.

Key takeaways

  • Sanctuary policies reduce some transfers to ICE (e.g., New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive cut voluntary transfers of people with no criminal record or dropped charges by ~30%, ~300 fewer transfers in 2018–2019) — but they are limited and full of carve-outs.
  • Carve-outs and exceptions in sanctuary laws create institutionalized procedures for cooperating with ICE in “corner cases,” which normalizes local help for deportations.
  • Local police frequently act as ICE “force multipliers”: they assist with crowd control, provide surveillance (body cams), and sometimes cross-deputize to perform immigration tasks.
  • Federal programs and post-9/11 data-sharing made cooperation widespread and, in many respects, mandatory (fingerprint sharing like Secure Communities became effectively unavoidable).
  • Administrative warrants and detainer requests are often misunderstood by agencies and the public; detainers are non‑binding requests but are treated like mandates in practice.
  • 287(g) deputization has surged (from ~117 programs in 2022 to ~1,300 at the time referenced), letting local officers carry out immigration enforcement with federal backing — and can shift misconduct accountability into federal courts.
  • Body cameras — pitched as accountability tools — also create searchable digital records (“data doubles”) that ICE and local agencies can use to identify, track, and prosecute immigrants.
  • Political rhetoric (both pro‑ and anti‑sanctuary) mischaracterizes the practical realities: sanctuary branding can overstate protection while opponents ignore how much local cooperation still occurs.

Notable quotes and framing

  • “Force multipliers”: how ICE describes local partners (police, jails, news outlets) that extend federal reach.
  • On administrative warrants: “It is just basically a statement that ICE thinks that this person is deportable … not something local law enforcement is obligated to comply with.”
  • On sanctuary policies: “The sanctuary policy itself … is still a deportation procedures policy. How do we help ICE in these cases?”
  • Example from body-cam footage: local officers parked to further box in a man so ICE could arrest him; officers told neighbors, “I don’t know. We’re not part of whatever that is,” while effectively assisting.

Topics discussed

  • Concrete incident: 2019 New Jersey stop where ICE boxed in a man driving with his son, local cops parked to block escape while saying they weren’t participating.
  • Role and limits of sanctuary laws (e.g., New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive).
  • History of federal attempts to enlist local law enforcement in immigration enforcement (Reagan era through post‑9/11 DHS expansion).
  • Secure Communities / fingerprint-sharing and how it became effectively mandatory.
  • Administrative warrants and detainer requests — legal status versus how they’re treated on the ground.
  • 287(g) deputization: mechanics, rapid expansion, and legal/accountability consequences.
  • Body-worn cameras as evidence collection and surveillance tools aiding ICE.
  • Political theater around sanctuary cities (defunding threats, public messaging) versus operational realities.
  • Broader implications: militarized federal interventions, immunity questions, and the limits of sanctuary policies to protect communities.

Terms explained

Administrative warrant

A document issued by ICE asserting that an individual is deportable; not issued by a judge and not an order local police are legally required to follow.

Detainer request

A non‑binding ICE request (often a fax) asking local jails to hold someone so ICE can pick them up. Legally non‑mandatory but often treated as mandatory by local agencies.

Secure Communities / fingerprint sharing

A post‑9/11 system requiring fingerprints from local bookings to be shared federally; on the back end the FBI relays them to ICE, making immigrant-status checks unavoidable across jurisdictions.

287(g)

A program where local agencies enter into contracts with ICE to deputize local officers as immigration enforcers after training. It expands ICE capacity and can shift legal accountability into federal courts.

Force multiplier

Originally a military term: partners or tools (like local police) that multiply ICE’s enforcement effectiveness.

Immigrant Trust Directive (example)

New Jersey’s statewide policy meant to strengthen trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities; reduced some transfers but included exceptions that allow cooperation.

Evidence & examples highlighted

  • Body-cam research: Mancina reviewed footage from numerous agencies; only about half of state law enforcement agencies were actually implementing New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive.
  • Statistical impact: NJ’s policy change corresponded with a ~30% reduction in voluntary local transfers to ICE for certain low‑level cases (≈300 people, 2018–2019).
  • Program growth: 287(g) programs rose dramatically (117 in 2022 → ~1,300 later), expanding local deputization for immigration enforcement.
  • Real-world video example: local officers present at an ICE arrest told neighbors to stand back and used their car to further box in the target—while verbally claiming non‑participation.

Implications and recommendations (what would change things)

  • Sanctuary policies alone are insufficient unless jurisdictions also change policing practices and information-sharing rules. To significantly limit ICE’s reach, localities would need to:
    • Restrict data‑sharing (fingerprints, databases) and close legal loopholes that allow ICE access.
    • Refuse 287(g) contracts and rescind existing deputizations.
    • Reassess the role of police in crowd control and in providing tactical support to federal agencies.
    • Develop alternative responders and community-based strategies for public safety (so police aren’t the automatic crowd-control force enabling ICE operations).
    • Strengthen legal clarity and training so administrative warrants and detainer requests are recognized as non‑binding.
  • Grassroots organizing and community planning should account for scenarios of militarized federal responses and consider protective, non-police-centered strategies.

Who’s speaking / source

  • Guest expert: Peter Mancina, cultural anthropologist, Rutgers Law School; author of On the Side of ICE, Policing Immigrants in a Sanctuary State.
  • Host: Gene Demby, Code Switch (NPR).

This summary captures the episode’s core arguments: sanctuary laws reduce some cooperation with ICE but, due to carve-outs, deputization programs, data-sharing, and policing practices (including body cams and crowd control), local law enforcement often amplifies ICE’s reach. The episode calls for broader rethinking—beyond sanctuary labels—about policing, data flows, and community protection.