By Marianne Denin
Activists emphasize that severing local and state ties with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is crucial for undermining President Trump’s mass deportation efforts.
Grassroots coalitions in an increasing number of states are striving to pass legislation aimed at disconnecting local and state governments from ICE. This movement is gaining traction as the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies reveal persistent issues within the U.S. immigration system.
Rebecca Sheff, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, notes a surge of enthusiasm around proposed bills across the nation. Sheff, who played a pivotal role in drafting New Mexico’s Immigrant Security Act, highlighted that the law, signed by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in February, prevents state and local governments from detaining individuals solely for civil immigration law violations. It also prohibits utilizing public land for immigration detention and stops local law enforcement from acting as immigration agents, with the legislation set to take effect in May.
Similar measures to limit the detention of immigrants have already been passed in at least six other states, including New Jersey, California, Washington, Illinois, Colorado, and Maryland. Many of these initiatives emerged under the banner of “Dignity, Not Detention,” a national campaign launched in 2010 by the Detention Watch Network, alongside hundreds of advocacy groups. Seven years later, California enacted its first Dignity Over Detention law, with New Mexico joining the effort as the latest state to legislate against civil immigration detention.
Organizers are actively pursuing similar initiatives in other states. Tania Mattos, executive director of UnLocal, a New York City immigration legal services organization, has been a significant player in this effort. Working with the Abolish ICE New York-New Jersey coalition since 2018, she contributed to the successful passage of legislation in New Jersey that ended certain contracts with ICE.
Matos became involved after witnessing the alarming conditions within immigration facilities. “People are terrified of detention, and tragic outcomes have been reported,” she explained. “Victims often enter without legal counsel, unsure of their fate or how long they’ll be confined. It’s akin to kidnapping, making individuals disappear.” Currently, Mattos is advocating for the end of immigration detention in New York through the Dignity-Free Detention Coalition, which counts over 150 public health and safety organizations, labor unions, and civil rights groups among its members. The coalition is pushing forward Senate Bill 316 and Assembly Bill 4181, led by New York State Senator Julia Salazar and Representative Kalins Reyes, respectively.
A linked initiative, the Dignity and Non-Detention Act, aims to prohibit both individuals and businesses in New York from operating immigrant detention facilities or renewing existing contracts. This legislation also compels government entities to dissolve current detention agreements, with over 70 identified across the state. Following Donald Trump’s return to office, the number of individuals detained by ICE in New York county jails has surged.
New York already prohibits private prisons, meaning that adherence to the requirements of the Dignity and Non-Detention Act would effectively dismantle immigration detention in the state.
Mattos emphasizes the importance of maintaining focus on humanitarian issues. “This fight is about ensuring survival. We must eliminate a system that inflicts suffering and leads to needless deaths,” she asserted.
Throughout the United States, immigration detention facilities have garnered a reputation for their dismal conditions. According to the American Friends Service Committee, when the Dignity Not Detention campaign was initiated in 2010, approximately 300,000 immigrants were held annually in 350 various detention centers. Notably, between 2003 and the campaign’s inception, 107 detainees tragically died due to the appalling conditions they faced.
Unfortunately, the situation has only deteriorated since then, with the second Trump administration apprehending 300,000 immigrants during its first half-year alone. Currently, over 60,000 individuals are detained across 425 facilities, and the mortality rate in immigration prisons is at its highest in over 20 years, exceeding records set during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. At least 48 deaths have occurred in ICE custody since last year’s inauguration.
Sofia Genovese, a Georgetown University law professor and attorney, disclosed that the current year marks the deadliest on record for detained immigrants. “Conditions have worsened significantly, in part due to the sheer number of detainees, combined with tactics aimed at discouraging future migration while punishing those who try,” she affirmed. Genovese’s research supports the notion that local and state disengagement with ICE is a vital step toward dismantling the Trump administration’s wide-scale deportation machinery.
Taking various approaches to challenge ICE detention, states are targeting Intergovernmental Services Agreements (IGSAs) that allow local jails to lease bed space to ICE for detained immigrants. These agreements can involve private prisons as well, with local governments acting as middlemen between prison companies and the federal government. Such “pass-through” arrangements are particularly concerning, as they enable ICE and private prison companies to bypass typical federal procurement standards and transparency regulations, which include necessary evaluations of health and safety performance. Genovese has identified that over 30% of ICE’s detainee population is housed within facilities governed by these agreements.
Sheff highlights that these contracts have long been ICE’s preferred arrangement. In New Mexico, two facilities—Torrance County Detention Facility and Cibola County Correctional Center—are owned and operated by CoreCivic under such agreements.
Once enacted, the Immigration Security Act will render these agreements illegal, mandating public entities to terminate them as soon as permissible. “While we can’t directly dictate ICE’s actions, we are working to eliminate corrupt arrangements and reduce state involvement in ICE detention,” Sheff explained.
The Immigration Security Act also voids 287(g) agreements, which assign immigration enforcement roles to state and local law enforcement, including authority to arrest individuals on ICE’s behalf. Sheff stated that the New Mexico coalition targeted these agreements to ensure local law enforcement remains focused on community safety rather than acting as ICE agents.
These transformative changes are made possible through principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment, which allocate more powers to the states. Sheff emphasizes that states have significant authority to protect their communities, asserting that cooperation with ICE for civilian immigrants’ detention is unnecessary.
While nearly 60,000 individuals are currently detained, representing a record high, this figure constitutes less than 2% of the 3.4 million people undergoing deportation proceedings.
The successful movement for legislation inspired by Dignity-Not-Detention shares common characteristics across states. A central focus on human dignity is crucial, as Genovese highlights the importance of nuanced discussions without categorizing immigrants as “good” or “bad.” “Successful abolition movements are rooted in empathy and engage in complex conversations,” she stated.
Jessica Inez Martinez conveyed to others involved that the Immigrant Security Act’s successes are intrinsically linked to amplifying the voices of those most impacted by detention policies. Martinez, a policy and coalition-building director at the New Mexico Immigration Law Center and a key figure in drafting the Act, emphasized, “Listening to the communities affected and placing them at the legislation’s center leads to meaningful change.”
Matos encourages organizers not to abandon their initiatives, noting that the battle to end immigration detention extends far beyond any single state movement. Legislative processes often require numerous amendments before a bill becomes law, and New Mexico’s current success is built on previous attempts dating back to 2019. Similarly, the Dignity and Non-Detention Act in New York has evolved since its introduction in 2021.
“My advice is to persevere,” Matos urged. “People across the nation are committed to alleviating the suffering caused by detention policies.”
