Sheriff’s office outlines limited 287(g) jail program; advocates demand safeguards and public reporting

Judge Sango opened the May 18 Commissioner's Court and turned to a requested presentation from the sheriff’s office on Senate Bill 8 and 287(g) agreements.

Chief Deputy Manuel Sodia said SB8 requires sheriffs that operate county jails to request a 287(g) agreement with federal immigration authorities and explained the three 287(g) models: a warrant‑service (jail‑based) model, a jail enforcement/general‑enforcement model, and a task‑force/field enforcement model. Sodia said the sheriff’s office plans to pursue the warrant‑service officer model, which he described as jail‑focused and limited in scope: “This is not a proactive approach from the sheriff’s office or from anybody. It’s a practice that’s been in place … the only difference is now they’re changing the name on it.” (Chief Deputy Manuel Sodia).

Assistant County Attorney Charlie Madrid summarized legal obligations and timelines, saying SB8 became effective January 1 of this year and requires a yearly request if a federal agreement is denied; he said the statute also creates a small state grant program that would make roughly $120,000 available to El Paso County based on population. Madrid described the warrant‑service approach as the lowest operational burden because it holds persons already in custody on an immigration administrative warrant for up to 48 hours while ICE is given an opportunity to pick them up; if ICE does not take custody within 48 hours the person will be released.

The presentation triggered extended public comment and pushback from community groups. Fernando Garcia, executive director of Border Network for Human Rights, said local law enforcement should not enforce immigration law and argued SB8 is part of a broader deportation strategy that will harm families and cost local taxpayers. “This is part of a machine that is working to actually stop and detain millions of families,” Garcia said, urging the court to oppose expansion of enforcement into communities.

Ivon Diaz (identified in the record as policy and advocacy strategist for the ACLV of Texas in El Paso) asked the court how it will prevent racial profiling and ensure meaningful oversight. “Policies that expand the criminalization of hardworking immigrants do not solve the real challenges our region faces,” Diaz said.

Samantha Singleton of Border Network partner B&H acknowledged the sheriff’s decision to pursue the jail‑based model but called for strict written guarantees that the program remain limited to jail operations, and for a transparent complaint process and regular public reporting on outcomes and interactions. Alan Saraga, communications manager at Border Network, urged the court to require comprehensive public reporting so advocates and residents can track how the program operates in practice.

Judge Sango and county staff said they would seek to publish regular counts and make post‑implementation reporting available. County officials also noted legal exposure and the limited size of state grant funds—Madrid said the grant is unlikely to cover most program costs. Several speakers warned of potential litigation and additional unfunded local costs tied to immigration enforcement.

No formal vote was required on the presentation itself; the court recessed and directed staff to work with the sheriff’s office to prepare public reporting metrics and next steps.

Ending

Commissioners and civil‑society groups agreed to continue public engagement as the sheriff moves to implement the statutory requirement. The sheriff’s office described the warrant‑service model as a continuation of an existing intake practice under different paperwork; community organizations said they will continue to press for narrow limits, independent oversight, and timely public reporting.