Alameda County Considers ICE-Free Zones to Limit Federal Detention

(ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) Alameda County is moving toward creating ICE-free zones that would block federal immigration agents from using any county-owned or county-controlled property for enforcement, a push supporters say is meant to strengthen sanctuary policies as national pressure rises under President Trump’s second term. The measure, now before the Board of Supervisors, would explicitly prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement from using local jails, offices or other county facilities for detentions, interrogations or surveillance.

County leaders began debating the plan amid mounting concern that, despite Alameda County’s stated limits on cooperation, federal authorities can still obtain data related to people in local custody. On November 7, 2025, the proposal remained under active discussion, with advocates urging a formal vote to codify ICE-free zones and shut down any remaining channels—financial or informational—that could connect county operations to immigration enforcement. Officials said the idea is to make the policy wall unmistakably clear: no county space, no county systems, no county resources for federal immigration enforcement.

Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, who campaigned on reform and has pledged to cut ties with ICE, told a February 2025 board meeting that her agency already operates with strict limits.

“We don’t communicate with ICE. We are not sharing information. We are not collecting information related to any type of documentation status.”

Her office later reiterated the policy in writing:

“The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does not request or collect immigration status during any encounter with the public, including interactions with our incarcerated population.”

These statements reflect a “zero contact policy” toward ICE adopted under Sanchez, who replaced former Sheriff Greg Ahern after years of criticism that the department had alerted federal agents to release times for undocumented inmates.

The proposed ICE-free zones would go further than department guidance by explicitly barring federal immigration authorities—including ICE—from using county property for enforcement of any kind. That includes county jails and administrative buildings, but also extends to any county-controlled sites where agents could conduct interviews, monitor people for deportation purposes, or launch surveillance. Supporters argue the legal clarity matters in a climate where federal policy has hardened again and fear among immigrant families has returned. Backers say a blanket prohibition is meant to eliminate gray areas that can lead to cooperation by default when federal agents request space or access.

Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas, who chairs the county’s new Ad Hoc Committee focused on these issues, said the board is looking closely at the county’s data and privacy practices to ensure the stated limits on cooperation are backed by technical safeguards.

“I take the issues of data privacy and the safety of all our community members very seriously,” she said, noting that the committee has begun a comprehensive review of what data is held, how long it is kept, who can access it, and whether anything could make its way to federal immigration systems.

Supporters of the ICE-free zones say this work is crucial to making sanctuary policies effective, because even without direct cooperation, data trails can expose noncitizens to enforcement.

That concern has sharpened around the county’s participation in the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, which reimburses local jails for certain costs associated with detaining undocumented immigrants convicted of specific crimes. Alameda County has received over $9.3 million since 2017 under SCAAP. To receive reimbursements, counties submit information such as place of birth and conviction details to a third-party contractor, which then reports to federal authorities. Immigrant advocates say the data flow—regardless of whether it includes explicit immigration status—creates an informational bridge that undermines promises to wall off local systems from ICE.

Peter Mancina, a researcher on sanctuary policy, said the funding model itself is at odds with the county’s goals.

“The critical issue is creating a funding stream that is specifically tied to immigration enforcement… It maintains this relationship of interdependence”

between local law enforcement and ICE, he said. Critics of SCAAP argue that even if reimbursements are limited, the structure incentivizes information-sharing and locks counties into a cycle of cooperation. They point to the program’s design: local jail data is validated and routed through a federal system, keeping federal immigration authorities connected to local detention patterns.

Lena Graber, senior attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, warned that SCAAP skews incentives in ways that can harm immigrant communities.

“It has always been a concern that the incentives behind SCAAP are bad. Even if it is pennies on the dollar, it creates an incentive to incarcerate people who are not citizens,” she said.

Advocates in Alameda County and beyond argue that as long as SCAAP dollars continue to flow, ICE-free zones and sanctuary policies will face an internal tension—promising noncooperation while relying on a funding stream built on reporting noncitizen detention.

Sheriff Sanchez and her team have emphasized that they do not collect or share immigration status and do not notify immigration agents about individual releases. Supporters say that matters for day-to-day interactions, from traffic stops to jail intake, where frontline decisions can have serious consequences for families. The sheriff’s statements are meant to reassure residents that deportation is not the purpose of local policing. But advocates pressing for ICE-free zones say statements alone will not close every loophole. They want legally enforceable guardrails, clear instructions for county employees, and audits of data pathways that could send a person’s name, birthplace or other identifying details into federal systems.

The county’s Ad Hoc Committee is now reviewing data retention schedules, law enforcement databases, and contracts with vendors to find and seal gaps that could expose residents to ICE enforcement. Local groups say this is where sanctuary policies are often tested: by the fine print of software agreements and the routine uploads of jail records. The committee’s work dovetails with the proposed ban on using county property for federal immigration actions, with backers describing the two tracks—physical access and data access—as essential parts of a single policy. If both are tightened, they argue, ICE would find it harder to operate in Alameda County, either by setting up interviews in local jails or mining local records for deportation leads.

The push comes against a national backdrop of tougher immigration enforcement. County officials and immigrant rights groups say that, in this environment, clarity and consistency matter. They argue that public trust is built when people can see rules in place that keep local services separate from federal deportation machinery. Proponents of ICE-free zones say that means residents should know county buildings and jail facilities are not available for immigration enforcement—even if federal agents make requests—and that local databases are not gateways for ICE to find people.

A core question now is how fast the Board of Supervisors will move. As debate continues, advocates want a formal vote to establish ICE-free zones in law and to add new limits on data-sharing. They also want the board to examine whether continued participation in SCAAP aligns with the county’s stated commitments. While some county leaders have described SCAAP funds as reimbursements that offset jail costs, critics say the program’s reporting requirements keep local detention systems tied to federal immigration enforcement. The discussion has turned on whether the financial benefit—more than $9.3 million since 2017 for Alameda County—is worth the ongoing data transfers and the risk they pose to residents with precarious status.

SCAAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, which describes the program’s reimbursement process and eligibility rules on its official site. For details on how the program operates nationally, readers can consult the Bureau of Justice Assistance page on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Local advocates say those rules show why county-level sanctuary policies can clash with federal incentives that reward detaining noncitizens and reporting details about them.

The proposed ordinance would formalize what supporters say many residents already expect from a county that touts sanctuary policies: that local governments do not help deport people and do not make their buildings or data systems available for that purpose. In practice, that could mean barring immigration agents from interviewing people in county jails, denying requests to use county office space for immigration investigations, and instructing employees on how to respond if federal agents seek access. Supporters say codifying these steps would create a clear standard that outlasts individual officeholders and helps prevent a return to past practices under former Sheriff Greg Ahern, when critics say release notifications aided immigration arrests.

The sheriff’s office under Sanchez has described a bright line: no collection of immigration status, no communication with ICE, no exchanges that could expose a person’s status through local records or booking practices.

“We don’t communicate with ICE. We are not sharing information. We are not collecting information related to any type of documentation status,” Sanchez said in February.

And the office reiterated for the public record:

“The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does not request or collect immigration status during any encounter with the public, including interactions with our incarcerated population.”

These statements have been cited by supervisors as the foundation for what ICE-free zones would seek to reinforce across agencies and facilities.

For immigrant families, the stakes are real even without the county publishing personal stories. Advocates say parents avoid clinics, workers skip wage theft complaints, and teenagers stay home from after-school programs when they fear immigration enforcement. They argue that clear ICE-free zones in Alameda County could reduce some of that fear by making it plain that county properties are off-limits for enforcement and that county-held data will not be funneled to federal authorities. Supporters say such clarity improves public safety because people are more likely to report crimes and cooperate with local law enforcement when they trust that calling for help will not start an immigration case.

Opponents of further limits were not quoted in the county’s proceedings summarized to date, but skeptics of sanctuary policies often point to cases where people later accused of serious crimes were released from local custody without immigration holds. County officials in Alameda argue that local law enforcement should focus on public safety and due process, while immigration enforcement remains the federal government’s job. By setting ICE-free zones, they say, the county is drawing a clear boundary: local resources will not be used for deportation work, and county staff will not facilitate it.

What remains is the board’s timeline and the details. Supervisors are weighing how to define “county-controlled” property across leased spaces and shared facilities, how to train staff, and how to audit compliance. The Ad Hoc Committee’s data review is expected to feed into draft language spelling out what information can be retained, who can access it, and how to handle requests that could put residents at risk. Advocates have asked the board to include enforcement mechanisms and public reporting so people can see how the policy works on the ground and whether any exceptions are permitted.

Alameda County’s next steps will be watched across the Bay Area and beyond by cities and counties working to align their sanctuary policies with daily practice. Supporters say ICE-free zones can serve as a straightforward signal that a jurisdiction will not make room for immigration enforcement inside its buildings or databases. As the Board of Supervisors continues deliberations, the debate centers on whether to take the county’s pledges and turn them into a durable set of rules—defining where ICE can go, what it can access, and what county agencies must say when federal immigration authorities come knocking. For now, the policy direction is clear: a widening effort to keep immigration enforcement away from county property and county systems in Alameda County, and to close the financial and data-sharing channels that have outlasted earlier reforms.