Law enforcement: other; requirement to enforce federal immigration laws; provide for. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0042'25
Senate Bill 43 would require certain Michigan law enforcement agencies — specifically the Department of State Police, county sheriffs, and local police agencies that administer detention — to participate in federal immigration enforcement programs. The bill creates or authorizes two program models, a jail enforcement model and a warrant service officer program, under which designated officers would work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to help enforce immigration laws within the agency’s jurisdiction. Before operating such a program, an agency would have to enter into a written agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under section 287(g) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.
The bill also requires participating agencies to designate officers for ICE training and adopt written policies implementing the act. In addition, law enforcement officers and agencies would be required to make a reasonable attempt to verify the immigration status of lawfully arrested individuals before release, and to transfer certain noncitizens with state criminal convictions or fines to ICE or Customs and Border Protection upon completion of their state custody. The bill further directs agencies, except where state or federal law provides otherwise, to assist in transporting certain individuals in custody to federal facilities or other transfer points.
As drafted, the bill would add new duties to state and local law enforcement and would effectively align those agencies more closely with federal immigration enforcement. It would also condition operation of the program on funding from a separate immigration and customs enforcement support fund, and it would not take effect unless Senate Bill 42 is enacted, making the two measures tied together. The bill would therefore affect detention practices, release procedures, interagency coordination, and the use of local resources for immigration-related enforcement.
The overall sentiment in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the bill’s content and caption, it appears to be a policy proposal intended to expand cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The absence of recorded debate or votes means there is no documented committee-level support or opposition in the materials provided.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether local and state police should be required to perform federal immigration functions at all, and whether doing so diverts resources from traditional law-enforcement priorities. Other likely issues include civil liberties concerns, the treatment of noncitizens in custody, the scope of state authority to mandate immigration-related cooperation, and the bill’s dependence on federal agreements and separate funding. Supporters would likely view it as strengthening immigration enforcement and public safety, while opponents would likely see it as an unfunded or controversial expansion of local police responsibilities.
SB 43 would create new statutory duties for specified Michigan law enforcement agencies by requiring them to enter federal 287(g) agreements, train officers through ICE-certified instructors, adopt implementing policies, and carry out immigration-status checks, transfers, and transportation related to federal custody. It would also establish or authorize the jail enforcement model and warrant service officer program, but only if supported by funding from the related support fund. The bill would directly affect the Department of State Police, county sheriffs, and local police agencies that administer detention, and it would change how those agencies handle arrested individuals who may not be lawfully present in the United States.
There is no committee transcript or vote history available in the provided materials, so the formal legislative sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate or roll calls. The bill’s caption and text indicate a pro-enforcement approach that seeks to expand cooperation with ICE and DHS. In the absence of recorded discussion, the likely sentiment can only be inferred as supportive among sponsors and immigration-enforcement advocates, with anticipated opposition from those concerned about local control, civil rights, and resource allocation.
The central controversy is the requirement that state and local law enforcement agencies perform immigration-related functions under federal oversight, including status verification, detention transfers, and transport to federal custody. Opponents would likely argue that this turns local police into immigration agents and may strain local resources or undermine trust in law enforcement, while supporters would argue it improves cooperation with federal authorities and public safety. The funding condition and tie-bar to SB 42 also suggest a possible dispute over whether the program is financially and legally workable without the companion legislation.