Given current events and horrors, it’s a perfect time to remind everyone how GOP politicians in Ohio’s Statehouse want to make matters even worse.
Currently, legislators are considering three different immigration-related bills. While separate pieces of legislation, they overlap in many respects. All include some level of forcing local governments and law enforcement to perform, to various extents, immigration enforcement.
It is especially important to note that immigration, and enforcement of immigration laws is a federal responsibility. The U.S. Constitution is clear on this matter. On a related note, the Constitution also (largely) prevents our federal government from commandeering states to carry out its wishes.
Now, that does not mean states and local governments are entirely shut out. Far from it. In 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Included in that bill was the creation of the federal 287(g) program. This is a formal, voluntary(ish) partnership between the (now) Dept. of Homeland Security and state and/or local governments. 287(g) allows local law enforcement to handle some aspects of immigration law enforcement.
The level of cooperation depends on the specific agreements entered into by DHS and the local government entity. Currently, local governments can choose from the Jail Enforcement Model, Warrant Service Officer, and the Task Force Model, or a combination of these.
In short, the jail model involves local law enforcement identifying for the federal government undocumented immigrants they have arrested and detained in jail. The warrant service model involves local law enforcement service and executing ICE administrative warrants on people in their jail. The task force model, easily the most controversial of the three, allows local and state law enforcement to make arrests for violations of immigration law when violations are discovered via their typical, daily policing duties.
There are a variety of reasons local governments and law enforcement do not enter into 287(g) agreements that have nothing to do with ideology or being “soft” on immigration violations. Funding is a huge one. Local government officials who often lament funding cuts and lack of resources for routine law enforcement are in no hurry to increase their burdens. Related, guess who gets sued for monetary damages when, under 287(g), local police are accused of violating civil rights, using excessive force, racial profiling, and more? Here is a clue – it is not the federal government.
Some local police and sheriff’s offices also recognize the distrust partnering with the feds can cause in immigrant communities in their cities and counties. As has always been the case in the U.S., immigrants will often settle in specific areas and neighborhoods, at least initially. Recognizing many immigrants often do not want to interact with law enforcement for any reasons, some criminals will prey on these same people knowing the likelihood is often low they will call police to report the crime. Knowing this, some law enforcement make it a point to build and nurture relationships with their immigrant communities to encourage them to report crimes. As you might imagine, these relationships can suffer when immigrants fear the local police officer they are working with may also be a de facto ICE agent.
However, GOP legislators at the Ohio Statehouse care about none of this. They are working to force local governments to partner with ICE, including above and beyond 287(g) agreements. This is a legislative pattern we have seen in other states and the reason I earlier used the term “voluntary(ish).”
Concerns about federal immigration enforcement and partnerships with local and state governments is not limited to Minneapolis, or other cities and states. Stay tuned for more as the Statehouse heats up during an election year.
Here is a brief, closer look at the three Ohio bills:
House Bill 26
Among other provisions, House Bill 26 requires local and state governments and law enforcement to cooperate with the federal government essentially via the aforementioned Jail Enforcement Model of 287(g). However, tucked into HB 26 is extremely broad language that basically kicks the door wide open by also requiring local and state law enforcement to “otherwise cooperate and comply with federal officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law.” No specific mention or reference here to 287(g), or formal agreements, or any other limits or distinctions. Under HB 26, those local governments who refuse to comply with HB 26 may be investigated and have funding from the state cut by 10%.
HB 26 has 15 House GOP sponsors and cosponsors. To date, it has had one hearing in the House Public Safety Committee.
Take action to stop this bill!
House Bill 200
Like HB 26, House Bill 200 has multiple provisions very similar to HB 26, including forced cooperation with federal authorities, the same broad “otherwise cooperate with…” language, and financial penalties for noncompliance.
HB 200 has 11 House GOP sponsors and cosponsors. Like HB 26, it has had one hearing in the House Public Safety Committee.
Senate Bill 172
Senate Bill 172 is primarily aimed at forbidding attempts to prevent arrest, detention, etc. of undocumented immigrants. This bill also contains its own broad language explaining anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant is not (emphasis mine) “privileged from arrest, detention, or being taken into or held in custody by a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency anywhere in this state under any circumstances, with or without a warrant, and regardless of whether the proceedings are administrative, civil, or criminal in nature, for removal or other immigration related purposes or proceedings.”
SB 172 also makes it illegal for state and local government entities to “obstruct or otherwise interfere, directly or indirectly, with a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency or officer who is arresting or detaining a person, taking a person into custody, or holding a person in custody.”
In other words, SB 172 demands full cooperation in numerous situations, caring little about any pesky formal agreements with the federal government or the limitations of those agreements.
All three bills are extremely problematic, with SB 172 being the most. SB 172 is also the one that has advanced the farthest, having passed the Senate 23-8 in June 2025 and now awaiting hearings in the House.
You will be hearing more from the ACLU of Ohio about these bills, including how to take action, as legislators very soon return for the second year of Ohio’s two-year legislative session and hold future hearings.
