Leaders say deputizing tribal police as immigration agents would undermine sovereignty and community trust

The Oglala Sioux Tribal Council has unanimously voted to reject participation in the federal Section 287(g) program and passed a motion banning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and activities from the Pine Ridge Reservation, according to reports from Indigenous media following a special council session this week.

The decision is being framed by tribal leaders and supporters as a direct assertion of tribal sovereignty—keeping tribal law enforcement focused on community safety rather than serving as an extension of federal immigration enforcement.

What Section 287(g) would do

Section 287(g) refers to agreements that allow ICE to delegate certain immigration officer functions to trained state, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel under ICE supervision.

Supporters argue the program expands enforcement capacity; critics argue it can erode trust in policing and chill victims and witnesses from reporting crime.

ICE’s own program dashboard indicates the number of signed 287(g) agreements has grown substantially nationwide in recent years.

Why the tribe says “no”

According to coverage of the council decision, Oglala leaders concluded that entering a 287(g) agreement would conflict with:

• Tribal sovereignty and self-governance

• Community trust in tribal policing

• The principle that decisions about jurisdiction on tribal lands should be made by the tribe

The vote also arrives amid heightened concern across Native communities about how immigration enforcement operations can affect Indigenous people—particularly in border and urban corridor regions where Native citizens report being questioned or stopped.

Context: a wider dispute over federal enforcement and tribal citizens

Earlier this month, tribal officials publicly objected to reports that Oglala Sioux citizens were detained during enforcement activity in Minneapolis and raised concerns about information-sharing and jurisdiction.

That episode has included conflicting accounts, with subsequent reporting noting amended statements and federal denials about key details.

Even with those disputes unresolved, the council’s 287(g) rejection signals a clear policy stance: tribal police should not be deputized for immigration enforcement on tribal lands.

Why this matters to Northwestern Ontario readers

For readers in Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario, the issue resonates beyond U.S. politics:

• Many residents travel through Minnesota for work, shopping, flights, and medical appointments.

• Indigenous organizations and governments in the region have issued advisories urging Indigenous travellers to carry appropriate identification when in the U.S., reflecting broader concerns about stops and questioning.

• The debate highlights a growing North American conversation about jurisdiction, policing partnerships, and Indigenous sovereignty—issues that also shape cross-border realities for First Nations in Ontario.