Why It Matters
Michigan’s Saginaw County is now home to the state’s newest local-federal immigration enforcement partnership, after the village of Oakley signed a formal cooperation agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 24, 2026. The agreement expands the reach of federal immigration enforcement into one of the smallest jurisdictions in the country to adopt such an arrangement, raising questions about resource allocation, legal liability, and public safety in small communities across Michigan.
The agreement marks the first of its kind signed in Michigan since a large-scale ICE operation in Minneapolis in January resulted in the deaths of two people at the hands of federal immigration agents, an incident that drew national scrutiny to local-federal immigration enforcement cooperation.
What Happened
Oakley, a village in Saginaw County with a population of fewer than 300 residents, formally entered into a 287(g) Task Force Model agreement with ICE on March 24, 2026. The agreement was signed by the Oakley Police Department, though the department did not respond to media requests for comment regarding the decision.
Under a 287(g) agreement, state and local law enforcement officers are delegated specific immigration officer functions under ICE’s direction and oversight. The Task Force Model — the type adopted by Oakley — allows officers to identify and report individuals suspected of immigration violations who have not been charged with crimes, and to exercise limited immigration authority while participating in ICE-led operations.
The Oakley Police Department has faced scrutiny in recent years, including past allegations of corruption by leadership, and some local residents have called for the department to be defunded.
The most recent 287(g) agreement signed in Michigan prior to Oakley’s was with West Branch, a small city in Ogemaw County.
By the Numbers
- Under 300: The population of Oakley, making it the smallest jurisdiction in Michigan — and one of the smallest in the nation — to hold a 287(g) agreement with ICE.
- 8: The total number of Michigan jurisdictions now holding 287(g) agreements with ICE, comprising five counties and three municipalities.
- 4: The number of distinct 287(g) agreement models offered by ICE, including the Task Force Model adopted by Oakley.
- January 2026: The month of the Minneapolis ICE operation that resulted in two civilian deaths, following which no new 287(g) agreements were signed in Michigan until Oakley’s in March.
- March 24, 2026: The date Oakley’s agreement was formally executed.
Zoom Out
The 287(g) program has been active nationwide since the late 1990s, but participation surged significantly following the start of the current federal administration’s immigration enforcement push. Across the country, hundreds of local law enforcement agencies — ranging from large county sheriff’s offices to small municipal police departments — have signed or renewed 287(g) agreements as the federal government has actively incentivized local participation.
Critics of the program, including immigrant advocacy organizations, argue that 287(g) agreements redirect limited local law enforcement resources, expose municipalities to legal liability, and erode trust between immigrant communities and local police. Supporters contend the agreements help identify individuals who may pose public safety risks and strengthen coordination between local and federal agencies.
Michigan’s eight participating jurisdictions reflect a broader national pattern in which rural and suburban agencies are increasingly joining the program alongside larger urban law enforcement bodies. Advocacy groups like the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center have expressed concern that the expansion into very small jurisdictions amplifies risks without proportional public safety benefits.
What’s Next
The Oakley Police Department has not publicly outlined how it plans to implement the agreement or what resources will be allocated toward ICE coordination. Because the Task Force Model allows officers to participate in ICE-led operations and flag individuals not charged with any crime, civil liberties organizations are expected to monitor enforcement activity in the Saginaw County area closely.
The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center has indicated it views the agreement as harmful to immigrant families living, working, or traveling through Oakley, and may pursue advocacy or legal avenues in response. No legislative action at the state level has been announced in connection with the agreement, though Michigan lawmakers have debated the scope of local-federal immigration cooperation in prior sessions.
Whether additional small Michigan jurisdictions will follow Oakley’s lead and sign 287(g) agreements in the coming months remains to be seen as federal incentives for local participation continue.