When 287(g) immigration enforcement agreements surged from 135 to 1,035 across U.S. agencies in 9 months during 2025, adoption patterns revealed surprising dynamics of local policy diffusion under federal-state coercion. Using comprehensive county-level data and Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying covariates, I find that geographic proximity dominated adoption decisions despite unprecedented top-down pressure. Each neighboring adopter increased a focal county’s adoption likelihood by 25%, the single strongest predictor. State-level peer effects operated independently, creating compounding regional pressures. Fiscal findings challenge conventional wisdom: counties more dependent on intergovernmental transfers were 64% less likely to adopt, while debt burdens and deficits showed no effects, revealing that institutional capacity, not fiscal desperation, determines responsiveness to federal incentives. State mandates accelerated adoption but did not eliminate geographic variation in timing. These findings demonstrate that spatial networks structure local policy decisions even when higher governments actively direct outcomes, with important implications for understanding federalism, policy diffusion mechanisms, and the limits of coercive intergovernmental relations.
ArmentaA. (2017). Protect, serve, and deport: The rise of policing as immigration enforcement. University of California Press.
3.
BallaS. J. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 29(3), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029003001
4.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963526
5.
ColbernA.RamakrishnanS. K. (2019). Citizenship reimagined: A new framework for state rights in the United States. Cambridge University Press.
6.
ColemanM. (2012). The “local” migration state: The site-specific devolution of immigration enforcement in the U.S. South. Law & Policy, 34(2), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2011.00358.x
DesmaraisB. A.HardenJ. J.BoehmkeF. J. (2015). Persistent policy pathways: Inferring diffusion networks in the American states. American Political Science Review, 109(2), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055415000040
10.
FarrisE. M.HolmanM. R. (2017). All politics is local? County sheriffs and localized policies of immigration enforcement. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916680035
GrayV. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174–1185. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956539
13.
HendrickR.JimenezB. S.LalK. (2011). Does local government fragmentation reduce local spending?Urban Affairs Review, 47(4), 467–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087411400379
14.
KarchA. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. University of Michigan Press.
15.
KincaidJ. (2019). The rise of coercive federalism in the United States: Dynamic change with little formal reform. In BenzA.SonnicksenJ. (Eds.), Patterns of constitutional change: Tensions between institutional innovation and maintenance (pp. 193–216). Nomos.
16.
MallinsonD. J. (2021a). Policy innovation adoption across the diffusion life course. Policy Studies Journal, 49(2), 335–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12356
17.
MallinsonD. J. (2021b). Who are your neighbors? The role of ideology and decline of geographic proximity in the diffusion of policy innovations. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12351
PetersonP. E. (1981). City limits. University of Chicago Press.
20.
PosnerP. L. (2007). The politics of coercive federalism in the Bush era. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 37(3), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjm011
ToblerW. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(sup1), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/143141
25.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Immigration enforcement: Better controls needed over program authorizing state and local enforcement of federal immigration laws (GAO-09-109). https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-109
26.
VoldenC. (2006). States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00185.x
27.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954434
28.
WarnerM. E.PrattJ. E. (2005). Spatial diversity in local government revenue effort under decentralization: A neural-network approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(5), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1068/c41r
WongT. K. (2012). 287(g) and the politics of interior immigration control in the United States: Explaining local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(5), 737–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.667983
