Federal immigration authorities are looking for a potential new detention center in Northern California, an effort that alarms advocates and some Democratic state lawmakers as President-elect Donald Trump gears up to unleash his mass deportation plan.
In August, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a request for information to identify additional detention bed space in the state as other federal agencies intensified border enforcement. The effort began in the wake of the Biden administration鈥檚 , implemented in June, for migrants caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border outside designated entry points. Under the ban, border agents can deport such migrants within hours or days without considering their asylum claims.
Advocates say an expansion of detention space would give Trump a runway to carry out more mass deportations in California. Immigrants in counties with more detention space are more likely to be arrested and detained, according to .
Unlike in Texas, where state officials are to facilitate mass deportations, California new federal immigrant detention centers from opening during the first Trump administration. The court blocked that, ruling that the state was unconstitutionally overstepping on federal immigration enforcement.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta told CalMatters that the state may be powerless to stop the possibility of a new facility.
ICE鈥檚 expansion plans聽
show ICE issued the request for information on Aug. 14. Such requests can pave the way for federal contracts, in this case to obtain 鈥渁vailable detention facilities for single adult populations (male and female)鈥� in Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, and California. Its request says the facilities should each have from 850 to 950 detention beds and 鈥渕ay be publicly or privately owned and publicly or privately operated.鈥�
One of the facilities should be within a two-hour drive of the San Francisco field office, the documents state. The request also seeks facilities near field offices in Phoenix, El Paso, and Seattle.
鈥淚CE has identified a need for immigration detention services within the Western U.S. area of responsibility,鈥� ICE spokesman Richard Beam wrote in an email to CalMatters. 鈥淭he proposed services are part of ICE鈥檚 effort to continually review its detention requirements and explore options that will afford ICE the operational flexibility needed to house the full range of detainees in the agency鈥檚 custody.鈥�
Currently, ICE detains roughly 38,000 people every day in about 120 immigration jails across the country. In California, that number is just under 3,000 detainees each day, held in six facilities, maintained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
That鈥檚 the third-largest population of detained immigrants in the country.
While ICE, the federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement, owns and operates a very small number of facilities nationwide, it mostly such as CoreCivic, GEO Group, and Management and Training Corp. Their detention facilities house 80% of ICE鈥檚 detainees. Stock for CoreCivic and GEO Group last month.
In California, private, for-profit prison companies run all six ICE detention facilities 鈥� the Golden State Annex and Mesa Verde detention facilities in Kern County; the Adelanto Detention Facility and Desert View Annex, both in San Bernardino County; the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County; and the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Imperial County.
Across all six, the federal government has the capacity to detain up to 7,188 people statewide.
State Sen. , a Democrat from Los Angeles, said she was concerned about of ICE having an increased capacity for detention and, therefore, deportations.
鈥淭he expansion of detention in California concerns everyone in our state. Expanding detention correlates with increased ICE raids and family separation, all of which has devastating social and economic impacts for California,鈥� she said. 鈥淚n addition, these facilities are run by private for-profit companies that consistently place their bottom-line profit above the health and safety of those who work in or are detained in these facilities.鈥�
Advocates argue that detention expansions lead to human rights abuses and undermine community safety.
鈥淎n expansion of ICE detention operations within the Bay Area and Northern California is going to be part of a reign of terror on our communities the Trump administration is threatening,鈥� said Bree Bernwanger, a senior staff attorney on the Immigrants鈥� Rights team at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. 鈥淲e already know from existing facilities within California that ICE does not and cannot maintain safe and or healthy standards of confinement for people inside.鈥�
The ACLU is suing to learn more about the federal agency鈥檚 expanded detention plans.
Bernwanger was referring to issues like complaints of . Also, in 2023, ICE allegedly by storming into their cells, violently dragging them, threatening them with forced feedings, and then providing food that was not appropriate for breaking a 21-day fast, in at least one inmate, according to a claim filed by the inmate, who was represented by two advocacy groups.
In August, the civil liberties organization released a detailing 485 grievances filed by detainees across six immigration detention facilities in California between 2023 and June 2024. Those grievances included allegations of hazardous facilities, inhumane treatment, medical neglect, and retaliation.
ICE declined to comment on the report.
California failed to ban for-profit federal detention centers
In December 2019, California passed a law that would have banned private immigration detention centers. It was part of a wave of resistance by California Democrats to the first Trump administration. It also prohibited the state from using for-profit prisons for any inmates starting in 2028. The for-profit facilities 鈥渃ontribute to over-incarceration鈥� and 鈥渄o not reflect our values,鈥� Gov. Gavin Newsom when signing the bill.
Days before the law was set to go into effect, ICE signed new contracts for its facilities in California. The federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned the state鈥檚 ban on private prisons.
Bonta, who wrote the unsuccessful ban as an Oakland assemblymember, told CalMatters in November that the state might not be able to stop ICE from opening another detention facility outside of San Francisco.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a matter of federal jurisdiction,鈥� Bonta said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 federal. I disagree, but my office鈥檚 disagreement was considered, and the court determined that it was a federal issue.鈥�