Hays County, Texas. A room full of people showed up this week asking the sheriff's office to slow down on a 287(g) agreement with ICE. According to the report, community members want the deal delayed, arguing they need more information before local deputies start working hand in glove with federal immigration enforcement.

For those who don't know the jargon, a 287(g) agreement is a partnership authorized under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It lets ICE deputize local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions, usually jail-based. A jail officer running 287(g) checks the immigration status of people booked into the county lockup, and if they're in the country illegally, ICE gets a detainer. The alien gets handed to ICE at the end of his local case instead of walking out the door. Simple concept. It works.

From the enforcement side, 287(g) is a force multiplier. A county jail becomes a checkpoint for status. Criminal aliens who would have cycled back into the community get flagged and removed. Every major jail that signs one closes a gap.

The delay crowd says they want transparency and more public input. Fine. Public input is part of the process and sheriffs answer to voters. But be clear about what "delay" usually means in these fights. It means stall until the agreement dies quietly. The open-borders lobby has run that play in county after county, and everyone in this business knows it. They don't want a better 287(g) agreement. They want no agreement.

The question the delay advocates never seem to answer: which criminal alien do you want released instead of turned over? The jail-model 287(g) doesn't scoop people up off the street. It applies to people already arrested and booked on state or local charges. Theft. DUI. Assault. The person being screened was arrested by a county officer for a county crime. ICE just gets a look at him before he's released. If somebody can explain why that's a bad deal for Hays County, I haven't heard the explanation yet, and I've been listening a long time.

The other argument you'll hear is that 287(g) makes people afraid to report crimes. That claim has floated around for 20 years and I've never found the case for it convincing. What I do know is that every time a detainer gets ignored and a criminal alien walks, somebody downstream pays for it. Ask the victims.

The sheriff's office hasn't announced a final decision, from what's been reported. These agreements go through DHS review, officer training, and a signed memorandum of agreement before a single deputy runs a status check. There's a process. It's already deliberate. Another round of listening sessions mostly adds delay, which is the point for some of the people asking.

My advice to Hays County: sign it, train the officers properly, and run it clean. ICE publishes a running list of agencies participating in 287(g), and it spans counties all over the country. The jail model in particular is about the least controversial immigration tool the federal government has, unless you think immigration laws shouldn't exist at all. At which point, say so out loud and stop hiding behind "we need more information."

The count only moves when somebody gets identified. Every jail that signs on moves it. Here's hoping Hays County moves too.