The Beloit Police Department has announced that it will not participate in Section 287(g) agreements under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, which allow local law enforcement to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. In a statement posted to social media, Chief Andre Sayles emphasized the department’s commitment to “progressive policing” and stated that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility. As a result, Beloit police will only cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in cases involving terrorism, violent felonies, or known gang activity.

The decision has raised legal and policy concerns. Under federal law, local police departments can enter into voluntary 287(g) agreements with ICE to help identify and detain individuals who are in the country illegally and have committed crimes. By refusing to engage in such cooperation, critics argue that Beloit’s policy may conflict with federal immigration law and create obstacles for federal authorities trying to enforce immigration policies within the city.

Additionally, opponents argue that limiting ICE cooperation may pose public safety risks. 

Without the ability to detain or report certain individuals to federal authorities, law enforcement may release criminals who could otherwise face deportation, allowing them to reoffend. Sanctuary-style policies have come under scrutiny in other cities where repeat offenders have been shielded from deportation, only to go on to commit further crimes.

From a policy standpoint, the department’s emphasis on “progressive policing” raises questions about prioritizing ideology over enforcement. Critics of sanctuary city-style policies argue that they can lead to selective enforcement of the law, where immigration violations are treated differently than other offenses. By refusing to cooperate with ICE in routine cases, Beloit’s approach could create disparities in how laws are enforced, depending on a person’s immigration status.

Trump’s border czar Tom Homan has been a vocal critic of sanctuary cities, arguing that their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement endangers public safety and burdens law enforcement agencies. In response to cities like Beloit limiting ICE cooperation, Homan delivered a clear message: “We’re going to keep coming” despite local policies attempting to obstruct federal enforcement efforts. He emphasized that sanctuary policies make immigration enforcement less efficient and more dangerous, forcing ICE agents to conduct operations in neighborhoods rather than within county jails. Arresting a criminal alien inside a jail, he explained, requires just one agent, whereas locating and detaining the same individual in a community setting demands an entire team and increases risks for officers and civilians. 

Homan maintains that cities protecting illegal immigrants from deportation ultimately create safe havens for criminals, putting law-abiding citizens at risk while undermining the rule of law.

As cities across the country navigate federal and local law enforcement partnerships, Beloit’s decision is likely to remain a point of contention. While the department justifies its stance as fostering community trust, concerns about legal compliance and public safety continue to fuel debate over the long-term consequences of such policies.