A resolution to encourage county sheriffs and local law enforcement agencies throughout the state of Michigan to enter into 287(g)agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enhance immigration enforcement and public safety.
House Resolution 128 is a nonbinding resolution that encourages Michigan county sheriffs, police departments, and other local law enforcement agencies to seek 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The resolution explains that under the federal 287(g) program, selected local officers can receive ICE training and authority to help identify, process, and detain certain noncitizens who are arrested, and to assist with administrative immigration warrants while under federal supervision.
The resolution frames these agreements as a tool to improve cooperation between local and federal authorities, strengthen public safety, and prioritize the removal of people described in the resolution as criminal aliens, gang members, and individuals involved in violence, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and organized crime. It also highlights the City of Taylor police department as an example of a local agency that has already entered a 287(g) Task Force Model agreement, and it directs copies of the resolution to state law enforcement associations and federal immigration officials.
Because HR 128 is a resolution rather than a statute, it does not change Michigan law, create new enforcement powers, or impose legal obligations on local agencies. Its practical effect is advisory and political: it urges local sheriffs and police departments to consider entering into federal 287(g) agreements, which can affect how local agencies coordinate with ICE on immigration-related arrests, jail processing, and detention referrals. The resolution is aimed at local law enforcement agencies, the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, and federal immigration authorities.
The resolution is presented in strongly supportive terms toward immigration enforcement cooperation and is framed as pro-public safety, pro-law enforcement, and opposed to sanctuary policies. The available context shows no recorded committee discussion or votes, so there is no evidence of formal debate in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill’s sponsors appear to favor expanded local participation in federal immigration enforcement, with an emphasis on rule of law and coordination with ICE.
The main point of contention is the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. Supporters argue that 287(g) agreements improve public safety, help remove people who have committed crimes, and provide training and oversight for participating officers. Critics of such programs, though not reflected in the provided transcript or vote record, typically raise concerns about civil liberties, racial profiling, community trust, and the diversion of local police resources from traditional policing. The resolution’s explicit rejection of sanctuary policies also signals a broader ideological divide over immigration enforcement priorities and local-federal cooperation.