Hudson Valley Patriots Urge Lawmakers to Challenge ICE Tactics Now

(HUDSON VALLEY) The Hudson Valley Patriots for Immigration Reform on August 27, 2025 urged county and municipal leaders to “publicly condemn ICE raids and intimidation tactics,” escalating a months-long fight over immigration enforcement in New York’s lower and mid-Hudson counties. The group says recent immigration enforcement actions by ICE have turned into “broad, indiscriminate sweeps” that target people regardless of criminal history, and it wants elected officials to oppose cooperation with federal agents beyond what state law requires.

The campaign follows a day of reflection and mourning held in Brewster and Carmel on August 16, where organizers honored neighbors affected by recent operations and rallied supporters. The pressure comes as Dutchess County data show that ICE detainer requests—notices asking local jails to hold someone up to 48 hours past their scheduled release—have climbed sharply this year. Nineteen detainers have already been issued in 2025, nearly matching the total for all of 2024, with most aimed at people who have no criminal convictions, according to local reports cited by advocates.

Local organizing, rallies, and the detainer data

The Hudson Valley Patriots for Immigration Reform has taken a leading role in organizing rallies, lobbying town boards, and pressing county executives to rethink cooperation with immigration authorities.

While New York law makes detainer compliance voluntary, some sheriffs still honor them. Advocates argue the practice risks holding residents without a judicial warrant and can sweep up people with pending charges or minor violations who would otherwise return to their families.

Key local figures and facts:
– Dutchess County: 19 detainers in the first half of 2025, compared with 20 across all of 2024.
– Several detainer requests targeted people with no charges or convictions.
– Civil liberties groups warn this pattern undermines trust in local police and deters victims and witnesses from coming forward.

Concerns voiced by residents include:
– Parents worrying about dropping kids at school.
– Workers fearing routine traffic stops could lead to detention.
– Mixed-status families worrying a simple court appearance might end in federal custody.

Town halls, petitions, and grassroots pressure

The debate has spilled into local forums and town halls.

• In Millerton, a citizen petition sought to limit police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement but failed to advance this month, highlighting divisions on local boards.
• Residents throughout the region are writing letters, attending meetings, and pressing lawmakers to draw clearer lines between local services and federal immigration tasks.

Advocates are requesting:
– County hearings on detainer practices.
– Transparency rules and public dashboards on detainer compliance.
– Multilingual public notices at schools, clinics, and libraries clarifying that local services do not ask about immigration status.

State-level proposals: visibility and cooperation rules

Lawmakers have introduced S.8462/A.8908, a bill to bar plainclothes ICE agents from wearing masks or face coverings during civil enforcement. Supporters argue visibility helps residents know who is at their door and why, especially during early-morning visits.

• Supporters’ rationale: Visibility improves accountability and helps residents identify agents during operations.
• Opponents’ concern: Agent safety sometimes requires face coverings; a blanket ban could create risks.

Separately, the “New York For All” campaign is pushing a broader bill to set guardrails for local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to rebuild trust in schools, clinics, and police departments.

National context: detention, oversight, and congressional access

The local surge is unfolding against national policy shifts and legal disputes.

• The Trump–Vance administration has adopted a stricter approach on detention and oversight, saying changes are needed for public safety.
• A contentious new policy requires Members of Congress to give seven days’ notice before visiting ICE detention centers.
  • A dozen House Democrats, including leaders in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, have sued to restore immediate access, citing Section 527 of the FY2024 DHS Appropriations Act.
  • They argue the seven-day rule violates federal law and impedes core congressional oversight.

ICE reports a detention population of more than 58,000 nationwide as of August. Advocates point to longstanding complaints about overcrowding, poor sanitation, and past cases where even U.S. citizens were mistakenly held. They warn that reduced oversight could delay fixes and hide errors. The administration counters that rules are needed to maintain order and safety in facilities.

Local advocacy, budget fights, and allied groups

Allied organizations are pressing for policy and budget changes:

• The Putnam Progressives and similar groups are urging budget cuts for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, arguing current approaches harm immigrant families.
• Organizers are calling for county executives and police chiefs to:
  • Set clear limits on cooperation with federal agents.
  • Share public data on detainer compliance.
  • Adopt rules that separate local services from federal immigration enforcement.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests these fights nationwide hinge on two core questions:
1. How far should local agencies go in helping with civil immigration tasks?
2. How can communities balance public safety with due process for noncitizens?

What is an ICE detainer?

Understanding detainers is central to the debate.

• An ICE detainer is a request—not a court order—asking a jail to hold a person up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release so federal agents can take custody.
• In New York, compliance with detainers is voluntary; many counties require a judicial warrant to extend detention.
• Because policies vary by county, a minor stop in one town can have very different outcomes than in another nearby town, creating uncertainty for families.

Advocates’ specific demands

The Hudson Valley Patriots for Immigration Reform have moved from rallies to concrete policy asks:
– Public data dashboards on detainer compliance.
– Public notices in multiple languages at schools, courts, and town halls.
– Resolutions that limit cooperation to clear, written standards and require a judicial order before honoring detainers.

Leaders stress they are not seeking to shield people with serious convictions but want to stop what they view as dragnet tactics that reach beyond that group.

Potential outcomes and what to watch

Key moving parts that will shape what happens next:
– A court ruling on congressional access to detention facilities.
– Whether Albany advances S.8462/A.8908 and the broader “New York For All” cooperation bill.
– Whether county executives and sheriffs change detainer policies and transparency practices.

For now, organizers want local leaders on record about where they stand on immigration enforcement and how far they will go in assisting ICE.

For official statements and agency policies, readers can consult the ICE official website. Legal resources and policy updates from civil rights advocates are available at the New York Civil Liberties Union. Allied local organizers share updates at the Putnam Progressives website. Each offers a different lens on what the coming months may bring as Hudson Valley counties decide how closely to work with federal agents.