Wisconsin’s Immigration Enforcement — 'Cooperation' Has More Than One Meaning
It's a quiet, gray morning here in southern Wisconsin. There's almost a foreboding to these gray skies: the far-yet-near conflict in Minneapolis demands that we consider what a de facto occupation by federal law enforcement means for our fellow Americans. More immediately, Minneapolis is a neighbor to Wisconsin, and Milwaukee is as inviting a target for federal power as Minneapolis (if not more so). We should not turn away now; we might not be able to turn away soon.
While Wisconsin watches what's happening to our immediate northwest, we also have our own debates about cooperation with federal authorities, what public safety requires, and the boundaries of the law.
To say that there is no consensus here is to state the obvious. Wisconsin has a sizable nativist faction that sees immigration enforcement as justified to any extent possible. These nativists apply an act utilitarian approach: whatever will bring the greatest ethnic and racial cleansing is their greatest net utility.
Many more of us in Wisconsin are humane, but we have not been tested as Minneapolis has been. (Better that no community should be tested as Minneapolis has been. Better that Wisconsin should respond at least half so well if a similar test befalls us.)
Today’s post offers a few key terms underlying how immigration enforcement operates in Wisconsin if they are complying with the law. I've a simple aim: to describe what counties do, how they do it, and what documents must exist if their claims are to be taken seriously.
Someone may say about his Wisconsin county, "our county cooperates" or "our county doesn't cooperate." There's more than one kind of cooperation under the law (and, too often, more than one kind of cooperation outside the law).
Cooperation under the law is not an action — it defines a series of legal actions or possibilities.
287(g). 287(g) is the formal partnership program that allows ICE to delegate certain immigration-enforcement functions to state or local law enforcement under written agreements. The statutory authority is found at 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (2026), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 and the ICE program at U.S. IMMIGR. & CUSTOMS ENF’T, Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g), https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g (last visited Feb. 8, 2026).
ICE describes the program and publishes participating-agency information, including a count and related materials. Critically, there is more than one kind of 287(g) agreement possible with a state or local agency:
The Jail Enforcement Model is designed to identify and process removable aliens — with criminal or pending criminal charges — who are arrested by state or local law enforcement agencies.
The Task Force Model serves as a force multiplier for law enforcement agencies to enforce limited immigration authority with ICE oversight during their routine police duties.
The Tribal Task Force Model serves as a force multiplier for tribal law enforcement agencies to enforce limited immigration authority with ICE oversight under Title 25 USC 2804.
The Warrant Service Officer program allows ICE to train, certify and authorize state and local law enforcement officers to serve and execute administrative warrants on aliens in their agency’s jail.
If a county that claims it 'cooperates' but cannot answer “Are you 287(g)?” that county is either (a) not cooperating in that particular way, or (b) not being candid about how. (Officials could deny one kind of 287(g) agreement but still participate in another type of 287(g) agreement.)
Detainers. An immigration detainer is, at bottom, a notice or request sent to a law enforcement agency telling the agency ICE intends to assume custody — and asking the agency to hold the person for a limited period so transfer can occur. ICE describes detainers in those terms.
This matters because detainers are routinely described in public talk as if they were judicial warrants. They are not. They’re a process that will have forms and logs, and may generate emails, faxes, portals, or phone notes. Counties that say they "don’t do ICE" often still do detainers.
Courthouse enforcement. Courthouses are where the state compels attendance of victims, witnesses, and defendants. ICE has issued guidance and public-facing material on enforcement actions in or near courthouses, including a formal directive governing such actions.
The Hannah Dugan prosecution in Milwaukee was a result of a courthouse enforcement action using an administrative warrant.
Wisconsin doesn't have a single immigration-enforcement posture. There is no single, statewide sheriff. No single jail administrator. No single county corporation counsel. We have 72 separate county governments, and beyond that many municipal police departments, state agencies, and federal departments that can operate with (or without) local help.
So when an official says,"my county doesn't cooperate in so-and-so immigration enforcement" what he sometimes means is "I'm going to give you an answer, and see if you catch on to what I'm concealing from you."