Summary — House Resolution (HR 128): Encouraging Michigan Local Law Enforcement to Enter 287(g) Agreements with ICE
Status: Adopted
Classification: House resolution (non‑binding)
Introduced: August 29, 2025 (filed) — subsequently considered and adopted by the House (see procedural timeline below)
Main purpose
HR 128 is a non‑binding state House resolution that encourages Michigan county sheriffs, municipal police departments, and other local law‑enforcement agencies to explore and pursue entry into 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The resolution expresses legislative support for local–federal partnerships to identify, detain, and process non‑citizens who may be removable under federal immigration law and to enhance what the sponsors describe as public safety.
Key provisions
- Describes the federal 287(g) program (8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)) and the types of functions local officers can perform under ICE supervision—e.g., identifying and processing removable aliens arrested for criminal offenses, limited immigration checks during routine duties, and serving administrative warrants on persons in jail.
- States policy rationales the sponsors cite: improved cooperation with federal authorities, prioritization of removal of criminal aliens and gang members, and the availability of federal training, resources, and oversight for participating local officers.
- Cites the City of Taylor’s police department as an example of a local agency that has adopted a 287(g) Task Force Model agreement.
- Formally “encourages” all Michigan county sheriffs, police departments, and other local law enforcement to explore and pursue 287(g) agreements with ICE.
- Directs that copies of the resolution be transmitted to the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, the Director of ICE, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary.
Who is affected
- Directly: county sheriffs, municipal police departments, and other local law‑enforcement agencies in Michigan (the resolution is advisory and does not compel action).
- Indirectly: immigrant communities, residents who interact with local police, and state/federal agencies that would coordinate on implementation if local agencies choose to enter agreements.
- Fiscal impact: the resolution contains no appropriation or mandate; costs and resource implications would arise only if local agencies choose to participate and enter formal agreements.
Potential impacts and considerations
- If local agencies choose to participate, it can increase federal/local coordination on immigration enforcement and may change arrest‑to‑removal workflows for noncitizen arrestees.
- Participation has legal, operational, and community‑relations implications: it may require training, dedication of staff time, and raises concerns about public trust, civil‑liberties risk, and potential changes in immigrant willingness to report crimes.
- The resolution highlights ICE training and supervision as intended safeguards but does not change statutory authority or create new regulatory requirements.
Procedural / timeline notes
- The resolution was filed and referred to committee; it was amended and adopted by the Michigan House (reported enrolled). Legislative records show committee consideration, amendment activity, and an enrolled report before final adoption and transmittal to the named organizations and federal officials.
- Because HR 128 is a House resolution (adopted at the state legislative level), it is advisory and does not itself create enforceable state law or require local agencies to sign 287(g) agreements.
Sponsors / proponents
The resolution is offered in the Michigan House by Representatives including (as listed in the text) Reps. Schriver, Maddock, Pavlov, Wortz, DeSana, DeBoyer, Woolford, Fox, BeGole, Frisbie, Cavitt, and Greene. Copies were directed to state police associations and federal immigration authorities.
Bottom line
HR 128 is a state‑level, non‑binding statement encouraging Michigan local law‑enforcement agencies to pursue partnership agreements with ICE under 287(g). It signals legislative support for increased local‑federal immigration enforcement cooperation while leaving actual participation and operational choices to local officials.
