State budget contains restrictions targeting ICE

The recently passed state budget gives New York a way to push back against federal immigration practices by limiting the scope of enforcement.

Newly enacted legislation prohibits local law enforcement agencies across the state from entering into formal 287(g) agreements or similar pacts that facilitate collaboration with civil immigration enforcement purposes. Local governments are now also barred from paying or otherwise contributing to the costs of constructing, owning, or operating an immigration detention facility. 

State, local, and federal officers cannot wear face coverings while interacting with the public in New York, excluding necessary tactical equipment, sunglasses, or medical masks. In addition, New Yorkers can sue federal, state, and local government officials for violating their constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement officers are largely prohibited from non-public areas of sensitive locations—including schools, libraries, and hospitals—without a judicial warrant. 

“Flagrant abuses of power by ICE will not stand in New York,” said Gov. Kathy Hochul late last month. “That is why we have enacted a comprehensive set of policies to hold ICE accountable, protect the constitutional rights and safety of every New Yorker, and ensure there’s no sanctuary for criminals in our state.”

Monroe County officers do not currently have a 287(g) agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. They do, however, receive annual grant funding to support collaborative border security with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol under Operation Stonegarden.

The county’s deputy sheriffs also no longer have discretion to call Border Patrol for assistance during stops. A supervisor is now expected to respond to and assess the scene before referring the matter to a police bureau captain for the final decision.

The new restrictions could soon face tests. The New York Times reported that Homeland Security’s general counsel wrote an internal memo telling agents that they were “not legally required to comply with state and local mask prohibitions while carrying out their official duties.” The mask ban and other provisions also are expected to face legal challenges.

Though largely in support of the enacted legislation, statewide immigration advocates view the measure as a step below the proposed New York for All Act, legislation that would prohibit state and local government agencies from cooperating with ICE altogether.

“These important protections were achieved by the tireless advocacy of immigrant New Yorkers who stood up for their rights despite the unprecedented threats to their families. However, the legislative package falls short of offering comprehensive protections by continuing to permit informal law enforcement collusion with ICE and Border Patrol,” says Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition. “We will continue to fight to end this harmful informal collusion, and call on Albany to step up and pass New York for All in its entirety.”

Narm Nathan is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer and a member of the Oasis Project’s inaugural cohort. 

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].