08/17/2026
Our Response to DA Heather Adams’ Statement on 287(g) Agreement With ICE
The Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office has recently requested monetary reimbursement from ICE. In her announcement of this request, made in a statement marking one year since signing the 287(g) agreement, Heather Adams makes a number of claims about immigration arrests in Lancaster that directly conflict with the data that we have analyzed from ICE via the Deportation Data Project. DA Adams announces that $45,000 dollars is being requested for activities “between January and March 2026.” The data used below extends through March 10, 2026, and covers the majority of the period in question.
DA Adams stresses that allowing custodial transfers from the jail are nothing new and that it prevents ICE from taking someone into custody in the community. This statement, while true, ignores the startling increase in non-custodial immigration arrests in Lancaster County. Historically, the majority of arrests were custodial transfers performed through a program called CAP. In 2024, 95% of immigration arrests in Lancaster were custodial transfers from the jail or parole system. In 2025, a shocking 68% of arrests were non-custodial, meaning that they occurred in the community. In 2026 (through March 10th), 55% of arrests were non-custodial, but a startling 34% of arrests were through the 287(g) program. These arrests through 287(g) are majority collateral arrests. Collateral arrests happen when, during the course of a targeted arrest, someone in the area is also arrested who was not the target, often family members, coworkers, or bystanders. 61% of 287(g) arrests that we analyzed were collateral, compared to 29% of total immigration arrests in the county. We encourage followers to look into national trends on rising collateral arrests and how these types of arrests have led to racial profiling lawsuits. The claim that 287(g) agreements are preventing ICE from coming into our community to conduct non-custodial arrests is categorically refuted by ICE’s own data.
DA Adams says that “many illegal aliens who have committed crimes” have been taken into custody, and notes a 2024 rise in the number of crimes committed by “illegal aliens”. We do not have access to data that shows the proportion of crimes among undocumented vs. native-born individuals in the county, and we encourage DA Adams to publish this data, without cherry-picking or spin. However, we can prove that the proportion of immigration arrests targeting criminals in Lancaster County is going down, not up. In 2024, 100% of immigration arrests involved people who were either in the jail or the county probation and parole system. In 2025, an increase in arrests among non-criminal immigration offenders brought this number down to 65%. In 2026, only 53% of arrests targeted criminal offenders, while 47% of arrests targeted non-criminal immigration offenders only. Importantly, the proportion of non-criminal arrests is even higher among 287(g) arrests. A shocking 74% of 287(g) arrests in Lancaster have targeted individuals categorized as non-criminal. While we do not doubt that some undocumented immigrants commit crimes, it is simply dishonest to claim that this agreement is making us safer by targeting criminal offenders. Criminal offenders were already targeted under the CAP program before the 287(g) agreement was implemented and 287(g) arrests are targeting non-criminal offenders. We do not take at face value any claim that undocumented immigrants commit crime at a higher rate than native-born citizens in Lancaster and, again, encourage the DA to publish this data objectively.
The DA’s claim that “the only difference now is that we have formalized this communication and partnership [with ICE] with the signing of the 287(g) and, more notably, the stark and noticeable increase in the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens” is refuted by the trends in the data, that show increased number of arrests, increased non-custodial arrests, increased collateral arrests, and much higher targeting of non-criminal immigrants in Lancaster County. If, as the DA claims, “nothing has changed”, we encourage the DA to discontinue the agreement, as it would be unnecessary. But much HAS changed in Lancaster County, including the immigrant community’s sense of fear and mistrust of our local authorities.