SB 2013 would require every Oklahoma law enforcement agency, including county sheriffs, municipal police, campus police, school district police, and other public agencies employing CLEET-certified full-time peace officers, to seek participation in the federal 287(g) immigration enforcement program. By September 1, 2026, each agency would have to apply for and enter into a memorandum of agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, maintain that agreement in good standing, and ensure that at least 25% of its certified peace officers, or at least five officers, are nominated, trained, and cross-deputized to perform authorized immigration enforcement functions.
The bill also requires agencies to make good-faith efforts to comply with federal participation requirements, including officer nomination, training, and background investigations. It authorizes consequences for noncompliance: agencies found in violation would become ineligible for state-appropriated funds, including certain grants and discretionary law enforcement assistance funds, and their accreditation could be revoked or suspended by the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Accreditation Program or another recognized accrediting body. The Attorney General would be directed to adopt rules to implement reporting, compliance, and appeals procedures, and the bill contains an emergency clause so it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
Its impact on state law would be to create a new statutory mandate tying state law enforcement funding and accreditation to participation in a federal immigration enforcement partnership. The bill would affect local and state law enforcement agencies across Oklahoma, as well as state agencies that administer grants and accreditation standards, by conditioning access to funds and professional standing on compliance with the 287(g) program requirements.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented public sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to strongly compel participation in immigration enforcement, suggesting likely support from proponents of stricter immigration enforcement and likely concern from agencies or stakeholders wary of federal immigration duties, staffing burdens, funding penalties, or local control issues.
Notable points of contention would likely include the mandatory nature of the 287(g) requirement, the staffing threshold requiring 25% of certified officers or five officers to be trained and deputized, and the penalty provisions that cut off state funds and threaten accreditation for noncompliance. The bill also raises potential concerns about administrative burden, federal-local cooperation, and whether state law should compel local agencies to engage in immigration enforcement.
SB 2013 would add a new section to Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes requiring law enforcement agencies to pursue and maintain ICE 287(g) agreements, train a specified share of officers for immigration enforcement, and comply with related federal requirements. It would also make noncompliant agencies ineligible for certain state funds and subject them to possible accreditation suspension or revocation, while directing the Attorney General to promulgate implementing rules.
No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s mandatory immigration-enforcement framework suggests it is intended to appeal to supporters of stronger immigration enforcement, while likely drawing skepticism or opposition from agencies concerned about mandates, staffing, funding penalties, and local autonomy.
The main points of contention are the requirement that every law enforcement agency enter a 287(g) agreement, the mandate that 25% of certified officers or at least five officers be trained and cross-deputized, and the penalties for noncompliance, including loss of state-appropriated funds and possible accreditation action. Stakeholders likely to object include local law enforcement agencies, municipal and county governments, and civil-liberties or immigrant-rights advocates; supporters would likely emphasize immigration enforcement and cooperation with ICE.