(NEW MEXICO) As of August 27, 2025, New Mexico is in a high-stakes debate over closing immigration detention centers. Lawmakers are weighing the Immigrant Safety Act, known as HB9, which would bar state and local governments from contracting to detain people for federal immigration violations and ban leasing public land for detention. Supporters say the measure is needed after years of reported abuses and deaths. Opponents warn the state should not block federal enforcement. The outcome could reshape how Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, operates inside the state.
Recent events and the Otero County tour
Two days earlier, on August 25, lawmakers toured the Otero County Processing Center in a visit organized by Sen. Crystal Brantley (R–Elephant Butte). Immigrant groups called the event a “sanitized publicity stunt,” saying it masked medical neglect and poor conditions.
- The ACLU of New Mexico and the New Mexico Immigrant Legal Center said true oversight requires independent access, not staged walk‑throughs.
- Advocates report at least three people have died in immigration custody in New Mexico since 2022.
- The tour hardened battle lines as committees prepare to take up HB9 in coming weeks.
National context: detention growth and federal policy
New Mexico’s debate is unfolding against a national backdrop of tougher enforcement in President Trump’s second term.
- ICE’s detention population climbed to a record level—over 59,000 people in June 2025—as larger facilities concentrated detainees far from legal help.
- A 5,000‑bed tent complex at Fort Bliss, touching Doña Ana and Otero counties, underscores the scale.
- The administration has also used National Defense Areas along parts of the border, allowing temporary military custody before transfer to federal officers.
Backers of HB9 argue the state should not fuel that growth through local contracts or public land.
What HB9 would do
Introduced in February 2025, the Immigrant Safety Act (HB9) would do two main things:
- Prohibit state and local agencies from signing or renewing agreements to detain people for civil immigration violations.
- Ban leasing public land for immigration detention.
By cutting off these pathways, the bill targets how ICE and private prison companies use county governments as middlemen to run facilities with thin oversight. Supporters say closing these loopholes would make it far harder to expand detention inside New Mexico.
Expected ripple effects
- If HB9 passes:
- State and local governments would be barred from contracting with ICE or private detention firms, forcing ICE to rely on direct federal deals and federal sites.
- Counties could face fewer legal risks tied to detention operations.
- Supporters say fear of interacting with police, schools, and hospitals would decline among immigrant communities.
- If HB9 stalls:
- Existing detention centers are likely to keep running under federal contracts, with advocates warning of continued abuses and more transfers to remote facilities.
- ICE and contractors could continue using county partnerships and leased land to expand capacity.
Opponents counter that detention is needed to enforce court appearances and removals, and that cutting local cooperation could increase costs and logistical challenges.
Political positions and oversight demands
- Representative Andrea Romero (D–Santa Fe) has backed HB9, framing it as a due process and public safety measure, pointing to documented medical neglect and the in‑custody deaths since 2022.
- Sen. Crystal Brantley and other Republicans have defended continued operations, citing public safety and the need to follow federal priorities.
- ICE maintains that facilities meet national detention standards.
Advocates press for stronger, independent oversight. The ACLU of New Mexico and the New Mexico Immigrant Legal Center want:
- Unannounced access for independent monitors
- Public reporting on conditions and incidents
- Unrestricted space for lawyers to meet clients
Legal providers are expanding hotlines and partnerships to reach people inside remote facilities as stopgap measures, but say HB9 is needed to reduce harm while federal policies remain in force.
“Real transparency means unannounced access, public reporting, and space for lawyers to meet clients without barriers.” — Advocacy groups
How the legislative process will play out
HB9 remains in play but has not become law. Key procedural notes:
- The bill must clear both legislative chambers and reach the governor’s desk before any contracts or land leases change.
- Committees are expected to take up the bill in the next session; the vote count is uncertain.
- The governor’s office has not indicated a timeline for action during the session.
- Advocacy has escalated through public testimony, briefings, and legal work aimed at existing practices.
Expect:
- Packed committee rooms and sharply split testimony
- Proposed amendments from both sides
- Intense scrutiny from county leaders that rely on detention revenue
If HB9 passes both chambers, the governor’s decision will determine whether New Mexico cuts formal ties to detention. If it fails or stalls, ICE operations will continue under current contracts while advocates press courts and county leaders for change.
Practical impacts if HB9 becomes law
- ICE would be pushed to rely only on direct federal contracts and federally owned land within state lines.
- That would narrow options in a region where county partnerships have long underpinned detention capacity.
- Possible operational consequences:
- ICE might bus people longer distances to out‑of‑state sites or invest in fewer, larger hubs far from courts and counsel.
- Advocates say that would reduce harm and rebuild trust with local police and schools.
- Opponents foresee higher costs and logistical headaches that could weaken enforcement in border communities.
Why families and communities are affected
For families, the debate is deeply personal:
- Parents taken in workplace raids can be moved across state lines overnight.
- Children struggle with school while relatives scramble to find lawyers hours away.
- Medical delays inside facilities amplify anxiety outside.
- Church groups and neighbors often provide food, rides, and consulate contacts.
Supporters of HB9 argue shrinking the state’s role would reduce these shocks in New Mexico communities. Opponents say detention remains necessary to manage cases and keep people available for court.
Resources and next steps for the public
- Families seeking information about detention locations, standards, or visitation can consult ICE’s official resource: ICE detention management.
- Advocates urge residents to:
- Attend hearings
- Check on detained relatives
- Push for unannounced inspections, public data, and improved medical care and lawyer access
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, New Mexico’s fight echoes a wider national pattern: detention is expanding under current federal policy, while some states test ways to limit local involvement. The choice before lawmakers is whether to join states that cut ties to civil immigration detention or to keep cooperating through county agreements and land leases. Either path will signal to federal officials how far the state will go to support—or resist—the current enforcement model.
For now, families across New Mexico are watching HB9 closely. Counties are reviewing contracts tied to detention revenue. The decision will shape trust, daily safety, and state‑federal relations for years ahead.
This Article in a Nutshell
HB9 would bar New Mexico state and local contracts and land leases for immigration detention, responding to reported abuses and three in‑custody deaths since 2022. If passed, ICE would need direct federal sites; if not, current county partnerships would likely persist.
