Expansion of Data Sharing and Interoperability Between Immigration and Law Enforcement Agencies
Overview
Since 9/11, reforms have increased data sharing among federal, state, and local agencies, integrating immigration enforcement with counterterrorism efforts. Programs like Secure Communities and 287(g) agreements enable local law enforcement to share data about removable noncitizens with federal immigration authorities, facilitating coordinated identification and detainment related to national security.
Information sources include Department of Motor Vehicles data, fusion centers that aggregate intelligence from multiple sectors, and databases shared under formal agreements. Private sector data purchases complement these sources.
The expansion of these initiatives in 2025 includes rapid growth in 287(g) agreements with over 800 Memorandums of Agreement signed nationwide, increasing local law enforcement roles in immigration enforcement.
Notable Data Sharing Programs and Agreements
Secure Communities
Operational nationwide, Secure Communities enables local law enforcement agencies to screen individuals booked into custody against federal immigration databases. Over 3,000 agencies participate, sharing biometric data to identify removable noncitizens.
287(g) Agreements
Authorized under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (1996), these agreements delegate immigration enforcement authority to trained local and state personnel. As of July 2025, over 832 agreements exist across 40 states, including jail enforcement and task force models.
Fusion Centers
About 80 fusion centers are federally overseen but locally operated nationwide, including New York. These centers integrate intelligence from federal, state, local, tribal, and private entities, supporting shared situational awareness and operational coordination.
Data from State and Local Agencies
Local databases such as DMV records, law enforcement reports, and license plate reader systems contribute data used by immigration authorities under varied state-specific regulations and protections.
Private Sector Data Purchases
ICE and related agencies purchase data from private companies encompassing utilities, credit, healthcare, and travel, supplementing governmental sources for enforcement and national security purposes.
Relevant Data and Metrics
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 287(g) MOAs Signed (2025) | 832 | Agreements across 40 states, several hundred agencies |
| 287(g) Trained Participants (Jan-Mar 2025) | 625 | Across 141 agencies covering task force and jail enforcement models |
| Number of Fusion Centers | ~80 | Operating nationwide including New York State |
| State Driver’s License Issuance Regardless of Immigration Status | 19 states + DC + Puerto Rico | Varied information sharing agreements with ICE |
| ICE Surveillance Budget (2008-2021) | $2.8 billion | Data collection, sharing, and surveillance expenditures |
| License Plate Reader Searches by Police for ICE (since June 2024) | 4,000+ | Searches on private LPR systems assisting federal immigration enforcement |
Potential Impact on New York City
- Operational coordination between NYC law enforcement and federal immigration agencies is affected by expanded data sharing, influencing arrest processing and detainer procedures.
- Data sharing practices contribute to community security strategies and resource allocations within policing and homeland security departments across NYC.
- Expanded interoperability may influence relationships between law enforcement and immigrant communities, affecting trust and community cooperation.
- New York’s role as a major immigration hub results in increased case management and enforcement responsibilities under these programs.
Legal and Policy Considerations
- Data sharing occurs under statutory authority including the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and Homeland Security laws.
- State laws vary in controlling or prohibiting sharing of data with federal immigration authorities, e.g., California’s SB 54 limits cooperation.
- Programs raise discussions on civil liberties, privacy protections, and resource prioritization within law enforcement.
- Federal oversight and local discretion create a complex operational landscape for data sharing and enforcement activities.