Public broadcaster WHYY in Philadelphia has turned its reporting lens onto a question facing counties and municipalities across the Delaware Valley: which local governments are signing, renewing, or pulling back from cooperation agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and which legislators are moving to limit those arrangements.

What agreements are typically at issue?

Three federal-local channels dominate the conversation:

• 287(g) memoranda, under which ICE delegates limited immigration enforcement functions to trained state or local officers. The program runs in two principal forms: a jail enforcement model that screens people booked into local custody, and a warrant service officer model.
• Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) through which counties house people in ICE detention in local jail facilities for a per-diem rate.
• Immigration detainers, the requests ICE sends to local agencies asking them to hold someone past their release date for transfer to federal custody. Federal and state courts have repeatedly narrowed the legal reach of these requests in recent years.

WHYY's reporting examines which Delaware Valley jurisdictions hold active versions of each instrument and which are reconsidering them.

Why is this question moving now?

Several pressures are converging. The federal government has expanded interior enforcement priorities, which puts local agencies in the position of responding to more requests. At the same time, court decisions limiting the legality of detainers issued without judicial warrants have pushed some councils and sheriffs to revise their policies.

The Philadelphia region is not uniform on this question. Philadelphia itself has long operated under executive policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration agents. Surrounding Bucks, Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery counties, as well as South Jersey jurisdictions across the river, have historically taken different positions, and several have revisited them in recent council sessions.

What changes for residents?

The practical difference depends on the jurisdiction:

• In counties that participate in jail-based 287(g), local corrections officers can question inmates about immigration status and process removals from inside the county facility.
• In jurisdictions that decline to honor detainers or to sign new IGSAs, ICE must rely on at-large arrests rather than the local jail pipeline.
• For non-citizens, including long-term legal residents, the variance means an arrest in one county can trigger a federal immigration response that the same arrest in a neighboring county would not.

Victims of crime, witnesses, and people with pending asylum or other humanitarian applications face particular uncertainty where cooperation policies are shifting.

Where can readers verify the details?

The specific status of any agreement depends on the county or municipality in question. The most reliable starting points are:

• The ICE website list of active 287(g) jurisdictions, which is updated as agreements are signed or terminated.
• The county sheriff or commissioner meeting minutes in the relevant Delaware Valley county.
• The state legislature tracking pages in Harrisburg and Trenton for any pending bills on transparency or cooperation limits.

Anyone with a pending immigration case who is concerned about how a local arrest could interact with federal enforcement should consult a qualified immigration attorney, not rely on county-level generalizations.

WHYY's ongoing coverage will track the next round of council votes, IGSA renewals, and any new state-level legislation as it moves through committee.