Governor calls for ICE withdrawal. Attorney General rebukes him. ICE responds with mugshots. The exchange reframes immigration enforcement as a public show of force.
Kelly, do you know how, or even if ICE/CBP pay the Sheriff's office for holding illegal aliens it wishes detained on a per day basis or some other arrangement? Is compensation to defray costs of holding detainees by the county jails part of the 287(g) agreements?
I'm aware in my county that the state pays our county jail for housing its prison inmates. Back when I was the county prosecutor, the payments worked out nicely as a win-win. Charges to the state were less than what it cost the state to house inmates in the prisons, and more than the actual cost to the county. Thanks to the arrangement, the sheriff was able to pay off the debt on building the new jail years early.
I am asking, because detention costs don't come up in MsM coverage (at least not in what I've read, though I may have missed discussions). Media coverage tends to make it sound as if counties absorb all the hassle and costs of cooperation with ICE/CBP, if only by omission.
Thank you for reading and for raising a thoughtful question. Yes, ICE typically pays counties under a separate detention services agreement, usually on a per-detainee, per-day basis. That payment structure is distinct from a 287(g) agreement. The 287(g) program delegates certain immigration enforcement authority to local officers, while detention reimbursement comes through a separate contract that outlines per diem rates and terms.
Whether those payments simply defray costs or generate net revenue depends on the county’s actual cost per inmate, staffing levels, bed capacity, and any construction debt tied to the facility. In some places, detention contracts can become a meaningful budget line. In others, they operate closer to break-even. The numbers matter, and they vary county by county.
A forthcoming article will examine the financial dimension in more detail, including how detention contracts work in Kentucky and what public records show about compensation structures. It is an important piece of the conversation, and it deserves careful, document-based analysis.
Kelly, do you know how, or even if ICE/CBP pay the Sheriff's office for holding illegal aliens it wishes detained on a per day basis or some other arrangement? Is compensation to defray costs of holding detainees by the county jails part of the 287(g) agreements?
I'm aware in my county that the state pays our county jail for housing its prison inmates. Back when I was the county prosecutor, the payments worked out nicely as a win-win. Charges to the state were less than what it cost the state to house inmates in the prisons, and more than the actual cost to the county. Thanks to the arrangement, the sheriff was able to pay off the debt on building the new jail years early.
I am asking, because detention costs don't come up in MsM coverage (at least not in what I've read, though I may have missed discussions). Media coverage tends to make it sound as if counties absorb all the hassle and costs of cooperation with ICE/CBP, if only by omission.
Good substack post, thank you.
Thank you for reading and for raising a thoughtful question. Yes, ICE typically pays counties under a separate detention services agreement, usually on a per-detainee, per-day basis. That payment structure is distinct from a 287(g) agreement. The 287(g) program delegates certain immigration enforcement authority to local officers, while detention reimbursement comes through a separate contract that outlines per diem rates and terms.
Whether those payments simply defray costs or generate net revenue depends on the county’s actual cost per inmate, staffing levels, bed capacity, and any construction debt tied to the facility. In some places, detention contracts can become a meaningful budget line. In others, they operate closer to break-even. The numbers matter, and they vary county by county.
A forthcoming article will examine the financial dimension in more detail, including how detention contracts work in Kentucky and what public records show about compensation structures. It is an important piece of the conversation, and it deserves careful, document-based analysis.