In recent years, the adoption of the 287(g) Program by local law enforcement agencies has brought a national policy debate into sharper focus within rural communities. Administered through partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the program allows local departments to participate in aspects of federal immigration enforcement. For smaller agencies operating with limited staff and constrained budgets, this decision is often framed in practical terms. Participation can provide training, information sharing, and coordination that might otherwise be difficult to obtain.
Supporters of 287(g) emphasize these operational efficiencies. They point to improved communication between agencies and the ability to better identify individuals already within the criminal justice system. In this view, the program is an extension of existing public safety responsibilities rather than a shift in mission. For rural departments, where resources are often stretched thin, these partnerships may appear to offer meaningful support.
At the same time, the fiscal and operational picture is not entirely straightforward. Analyses from organizations such as the American Immigration Council and the Migration Policy Institute suggest that localities may encounter indirect costs, including training time, administrative requirements, and potential legal considerations. Beyond these measurable factors, there are also broader questions related to community relationships. Rural policing often depends on familiarity, accessibility, and mutual trust between residents and law enforcement. In many small communities, that close connection is a defining strength. As local departments take on expanded roles through partnerships with federal agencies, it is reasonable to consider how those roles may influence public perception and engagement over time, even if the day-to-day mission of local policing remains unchanged.
Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that participation in 287(g) can create the impression that a community is engaged in or tolerant of immigration-based profiling. Whether or not such profiling occurs in practice, perception alone can influence how residents and outsiders understand a place. In smaller communities, where reputation carries weight, this can shape both internal dynamics and external views. Supporters counter that the program is structured to operate within constitutional limits and often focuses on individuals already in custody. Even so, perception and practice are not easily separated for many. If individuals believe they may be subject to scrutiny based on identity, they may be less likely to report crimes or engage with public institutions, which introduces a different kind of public safety concern.
An additional layer of complexity emerges when considering how widespread 287(g) participation has become. The program is not confined to isolated or uniform rural areas. Many counties that participate in 287(g) include or border well-known tourist destinations, from coastal regions in the Southeast to parts of Florida and Texas. This overlap highlights an often-overlooked reality. Participation in federal immigration enforcement partnerships does not occur only in places defined by a single economic or cultural identity. Communities that rely on tourism, seasonal labor, or agriculture may still adopt these agreements as part of a broader law enforcement strategy. As a result, the presence of 287(g) is often less visible to visitors than it is consequential for residents. Consequential regarding financial cost, but more so regarding community division.
Within this landscape, grassroots organizations such as the Cattaraugus Allegany Liberation Coalition (CALC) have emerged as participants in the local conversation. CALC functions as an advocacy and organizing group rather than a formal service provider. Its work includes public education efforts, organizing events, and encouraging civic engagement around immigration and law enforcement policies. In regions where formal immigrant support systems are limited, this type of activity can increase awareness and provide informal networks of connection.
The impact of this work is both constructive and contested. CALC contributes to public visibility and encourages engagement with policy decisions that might otherwise receive limited attention. At the same time, its advocacy-based approach can generate tension, particularly when messaging is perceived as misaligned with local experience or when it is interpreted as criticism of individuals rather than policy. Because CALC does not provide direct legal or social services, questions about the tangible outcomes of its work often arise alongside its visibility.
An additional tension lies in the fiscal and civic tradeoffs inherent in the decision itself. By rejecting participation in the 287(g) Program, communities may forgo opportunities to offset the local impact of increased federal immigration enforcement, regardless of whether that enforcement is viewed as beneficial or harmful. In that sense, the question of its value becomes, at least partially, beside the point. Accepting 287(g) funding can ease already strained municipal budgets and provide operational support that rural departments might otherwise lack. Yet that same decision inevitably invites deeper public scrutiny and discussion. This is, in and of itself, not a negative outcome. Healthy communities are defined in part by their willingness to engage in difficult issues. The concern arises when that dialogue becomes so tense that it discourages participation or limits whose voices are heard. When residents begin to withdraw from conversation rather than contribute to it, the result is not clarity but division. In such moments, the community risks creating distance even among its most thoughtful and engaged members.
The interaction between 287(g) participation and advocacy efforts has reshaped local dialogue in both productive and challenging ways. It has introduced new perspectives, encouraged civic engagement, and brought greater attention to how local decisions intersect with federal policy. At the same time, it has revealed differences in how residents define public safety, fairness, and community identity. These differences do not need to be resolved to be constructive, but they do need to be acknowledged.
Ultimately, this issue exists within a much larger moment of uncertainty and division, both nationally and globally. While policy debates are important, they should not overshadow the fundamental need for local cohesion. In times of real hardship, whether driven by economic strain, natural events, or broader instability, it is not distant institutions that will define a community’s resilience, but the strength of its own relationships. Rural regions, including those in Appalachia, have long demonstrated a capacity for self-reliance, cooperation, and persistence. That identity is rooted not in uniform agreement, but in the ability to work through differences while maintaining a shared commitment to place and to one another. Maintaining that balance, especially in the face of complex and sometimes divisive issues, is what ultimately determines whether a community remains strong, connected, and prepared for whatever challenges may come.
This article is a community submission from Dr. Kimberly Meehan. It has been rewritten and edited for publication. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publishing outlet.
