Federal immigration officials are on the lookout for a new detention facility in Northern California, stirring concerns among advocates and several Democratic legislators in the state as the new administration signals its intent to implement significant deportation measures.

In August, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) put out a request for information aimed at increasing the number of available detention beds within the state, in line with intensified efforts from other federal authorities focused on border enforcement. This initiative follows the Biden administration’s broad asylum ban, which was enacted in June for migrants apprehended crossing the U.S.-Mexico border outside of designated entry locations. This new regulation allows border officers to swiftly deport such migrants without evaluating their asylum requests.

Advocates for immigrant rights argue that the increase in detention facilities would essentially facilitate a mass deportation campaign within California. Research has indicated that immigrants in areas with more detention options are at a higher risk of arrest and subsequent detention.

In contrast to Texas, where local state officials have proposed land to aid the Trump administration’s deportation initiatives, California attempted to prohibit the establishment of additional federal immigrant detention centers during Trump’s first term. However, a court ruled against this move, determining that the state was improperly infringing on federal immigration enforcement matters.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has expressed concern that the state might lack the authority to prevent the establishment of a new facility.

ICE’s recent endeavors were revealed in federal documents, indicating that they issued their request for information on August 14. These requests often lay the groundwork for federal contracts designed to secure “available detention facilities for single adult populations (both male and female)” in states such as Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, and California. The request specifies that each facility should provide between 850 and 950 beds, and may be either publicly or privately owned and operated. Additionally, one facility needs to be situated within a two-hour journey from the San Francisco field office, as well as near offices in Phoenix, El Paso, and Seattle.

In a statement, ICE spokesman Richard Beam remarked that the agency has recognized a demand for immigration detention services in the western regions of the United States. He mentioned that the proposed initiative is part of ICE’s ongoing assessment of its detention needs, aimed at finding options that permit the operational flexibility necessary to accommodate a diverse range of detainees under its care.

Presently, ICE is detaining around 38,000 individuals daily across approximately 120 immigration jails nationwide. Within California, close to 3,000 detainees are maintained in six different facilities, marking the largest number under detention in the state, and ranking third in the nation.

Despite ICE operating a limited number of detention centers on its own, most facilities are managed through contracts with private prison companies such as CoreCivic, GEO Group, and Management and Training Corp. These companies are responsible for housing 80% of ICE detainees, and their stocks saw a surge following Trump’s election last month.

In California, all current ICE detention centers are operated by private for-profit prison companies, including the Golden State Annex and Mesa Verde in Kern County, the Adelanto and Desert View facilities in San Bernardino County, the Otay Mesa facility in San Diego County, and the Imperial Regional facility in Imperial County. Collectively, these six locations have the capacity to detain up to 7,188 individuals statewide.

State Senator María Elena Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles, has voiced her unease regarding the potential economic repercussions stemming from an expanded ICE detention capacity.

“The increase in detention facilities in California is alarming for everyone in the state. Greater detention capabilities directly correlate with heightened ICE raids and family separations, which have dire social and economic aftermaths for California,” she emphasized. “What’s more, these facilities are managed by for-profit companies that prioritize their financial interests over the health and safety of detainees and their employees.”

Human rights advocates assert that an increase in detention centers leads to violations of human rights and jeopardizes community safety.

“An increase in ICE detention operations in the Bay Area and Northern California represents an impending atmosphere of fear, something the Trump administration is imposing on our communities,” stated Bree Bernwanger, a senior attorney for the Immigrants’ Rights team with the ACLU of Northern California. “Evidence from current facilities in California indicates that ICE fails to maintain safe or humane conditions for those detained.”

The ACLU is pursuing legal action to further investigate ICE’s expanded detention intentions.

Bernwanger pointed to severe issues, including allegations of violent pat-downs and claims that in 2023, ICE retaliated against protesting detainees. According to reports, hunger strikers were forcibly removed from their cells, threatened with forced feedings, and given food that was inappropriate for breaking long fasts, leading to health complications for inmates.

In August, the ACLU published a report that cataloged 485 complaints issued by detainees from six facilities in California between 2023 and June 2024, documenting numerous allegations of unsafe environments, inhumane treatment, lack of medical care, and retaliation.

ICE has chosen not to comment on the ACLU’s report.

California’s attempt to ban privately-operated federal detention centers faltered in December 2019. The legislation was part of California Democrats’ broader resistance during Trump’s first administration and aimed to prevent the state from using for-profit prisons for any inmates by 2028. Governor Gavin Newsom remarked that these facilities contribute to excessive incarceration rates and do not align with the state’s values when he signed the new legislation.

Shortly before the law was scheduled to take effect, ICE signed new contracts for its existing California facilities, and the state’s judiciary later overturns the ban on private prisons.

Bonta, who authored the unsuccessful ban when he served in the California Assembly, stated that the state may find its hands tied concerning ICE’s plans for a new detention center near San Francisco.

“It falls under federal jurisdiction,” Bonta acknowledged. “While I may disagree, our office’s objections were considered, and the court determined that it’s fundamentally a federal issue.”