The recent legislative proposal by New York Governor Kathy Hochul targeting cooperation between local law enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has become one of the most discussed political developments in the state’s policy landscape. Known as the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, the proposal aims to fundamentally alter how New York’s state and local police interact with federal immigration authorities, reflecting broader national debates over immigration enforcement, civil rights, and community trust. This legislation, introduced as part of Hochul’s State of the State agenda, has stirred discussion both among advocates who see it as a necessary defense of constitutional rights and detractors who worry about its effects on public safety and law enforcement collaboration.

At the heart of the “ICE bill” is the intention to end formal agreements that allow local police to enforce federal civil immigration law, most notably the controversial 287(g) contracts that permit local officers to be deputized by ICE. These agreements, long criticized by immigrant rights groups, allow state and local law enforcement to carry out certain federal immigration duties, effectively merging local policing with federal immigration enforcement. Governor Hochul’s proposal would eliminate all existing 287(g) agreements in New York and prevent new ones from being formed, aiming to ensure that local police remain focused on community safety rather than federal immigration enforcement tasks.

Supporters of the bill argue that such formal collaborations have eroded trust Kathy Hochul ICE bill  between law enforcement and immigrant communities, making individuals less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police investigations due to fear of immigration consequences. One of the central arguments in favor of the legislation is that public safety improves when communities trust local police, enabling better crime reporting and cooperation without the fear of civil immigration detention. By severing the formal ties between local agencies and ICE, Hochul’s administration contends that law enforcement can better prioritize serious criminal activity, leaving federal immigration enforcement to the appropriate federal authorities.

Beyond eliminating 287(g) agreements, the bill also includes provisions to prevent federal immigration agents from using local detention facilities for civil immigration enforcement and mass operations, which has been another point of contention among advocates. Additionally, the legislation would protect “sensitive locations” — such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, and private homes — by requiring federal agents to obtain judicial warrants before entering these spaces for immigration enforcement purposes. The expansion of protections to include private homes follows recent federal policy changes that rolled back older protections, raising concerns over constitutional rights and enforcement overreach.

The introduction of this bill comes amid a broader national context of contentious immigration debates, including criticism of aggressive federal enforcement actions and fatal incidents involving ICE agents that have drawn public outcry. Hochul has framed her proposal as a necessary response to what she describes as dangerous federal overreach, insisting that New York must protect its residents’ constitutional rights and prevent local officers from being used to carry out federal agendas. Her stance resonates with communities advocating for sanctuary policies and stronger immigrant protections, though it has also faced criticism from opponents concerned about limiting tools to address immigration-related crime.

Critics, including some law enforcement representatives and political figures, argue that banning formal cooperation with ICE could create challenges in addressing serious criminal activity that crosses state and federal jurisdictions. They claim that local and federal partnerships have historically helped track and apprehend individuals involved in violent and organized crime. These voices assert that New York’s move could send a mixed signal about cooperation and might complicate efforts to keep communities safe.

As the New York State Legislature prepares to consider the bill, the debate is expected to intensify, reflecting deep divides over immigration policy, public safety, and the balance of power between state and federal authority. Whether the bill becomes law will depend on legislative negotiations and political will, but its introduction alone marks a significant moment in the ongoing conversation about how states respond to federal immigration enforcement strategies