The incoming US administration, led by President-elect Donald Trump, has made a distinct stance by promising intense ‘mass deportations.’ These planned actions pose a dilemma for states since, traditionally, immigration issues are a federal prerogative. Thus, in a couple of months, we may witness a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, potentially supplemented by US armed forces, actively detaining and deporting people, irrespective of local government and community preferences.
However, deportations hinge on logistics, and notably, local and state authorities have some influence in this regard. Hence, individual states can either aid ICE in executing the colossal operation that Trump has promised, or they can complicate ICE’s plans considerably. New York State’s likely role in this is still uncertain, despite its historically favorable attitude toward immigrants. The state’s ultimate stance heavily depends on the expedient actions of Governor Kathy Hochul and state legislators.
Over the past years, and particularly during Trump’s first term, under then-Governor Andrew Cuomo’s tenure, New York put measures in place which limited federal immigration enforcement within the state. Executive directives and state decrees now ban immigration detentions at public courts and state-run facilities. Moreover, state agencies are largely forbidden from joining forces with immigration authorities.
However, when compared to other blue states such as New Jersey, Oregon, or Illinois, New York has yet to apply these restrictions to its local and county governments. This discrepancy implies that local authorities largely enjoy freedoms in addressing immigration matters as they deem fit, which could include collaborating with federal agencies in facilitating deportations.
Yasmine Farhang, the Director of Advocacy at the Immigrant Defense Project, clarified, ‘Currently, we lack a uniform state-wide law that provides protection to immigrant New Yorkers, or anybody visiting New York, no matter their location within the state.’
Several laws, like the ‘New York for All Act,’ which were proposed with the aim of preventing local enforcement agencies from cooperating with ICE, have seen difficulty in passing, partly due to misconceptions surrounding immigration and public safety issues. Coupled with deportations during the Covid-19 pandemic, these factors have significantly strained local and state government budgets.
A surge of almost 100,000 asylum seekers in the past two years has further complicated New York’s immigration scenario. However, it’s important to clarify that asylum seekers are not undocumented immigrants, and they aren’t subject to removal unless their asylum pleas are rejected, or they are convicted of a qualifying crime.
Governor Hochul has yet to witness a comprehensive ICE clamping down during her term. Her tenure has overlapped with an unexpected period of reduced interior enforcement, with most federal efforts concentrated on the southern border.
Even though court proceedings and logistical obstacles kept Trump-era deportations from matching the levels seen under Barack Obama’s administration, immigrant communities across the nation, including in New York, continuously live in anxious anticipation of an unwelcomed visit by ICE.
Now, in his second term, Trump is poised to reinstate ICE’s vigorous enforcement. His principal immigration advisor has hinted at a return to ‘indiscriminate’ enforcement policies, even suggesting a drastic ‘blitz’ to disable uncooperative authorities and civil society.
If New York decides to push back against this impending clampdown, it must act swiftly. The ‘New York for All Act’ has been repeatedly brought back each legislative term since its inception over four years ago, but it has always stalled in committee.
Without the protections this law offers, there’s minimal oversight preventing local authorities, particularly law enforcement from aiding in deportation activities. Various methods of local deportation aid exist, with the most formal being a documented agreement between ICE and a local enforcement agency.
New York has an increasing amount of data that it could be mandated to share with the federal government. State-run intelligence centers dedicated to battling gun crime have multiplied under Hochul’s leadership, as have special law enforcement collaboration hubs aimed at terrorism surveillance and drug trafficking. ‘Many of these post-9/11 intelligence-sharing outlets, while originally aimed at counter-terrorism measures, often target immigrant communities,’ commented Albert Fox Cahn, Executive Director of the New York-based Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.