Governor Kathy Hochul’s latest legislative push to sever local ties with federal immigration enforcement has ignited a firestorm of debate across New York.
Last week, Hochul introduced the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, a bill designed to end cooperation agreements between local police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including Nassau County’s 287(g) agreement signed in 2025. The legislation seeks to block local departments from aiding in civil immigration arrests and bar ICE from using county detention facilities without warrants for sensitive locations like schools or homes. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, a Republican challenging Hochul in this year’s gubernatorial race, has sharply criticized the proposal, while Hochul’s office defends it as a safeguard for communities.
According to the New York Post, the debate has split along party lines, with state Democrats backing Hochul and local Republicans like Blakeman warning of unintended consequences. Five New York counties, including Nassau, currently hold 287(g) agreements with ICE, while over 50 others do not participate in such arrangements. Concerns have also surfaced about Nassau’s deal, including a lawsuit from the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and reports of poor conditions for detainees in county facilities.
The issue has sparked intense debate over public safety and the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration matters.
Blakeman has been vocal, arguing that dismantling these agreements could backfire spectacularly. “Hochul’s attempt to end that cooperation won’t make ICE disappear — it will put more federal agents on our streets, operating without local partnership or oversight, all while setting dangerous criminals free,” he told The Post. If local police can’t coordinate with ICE, the feds might just double down, unchecked, leaving communities vulnerable to both overreach and crime.
Hochul’s camp, however, pushes back hard against such warnings. “There is no evidence to support the claim that ending 287(g) agreements would trigger an increase in ICE activity,” said Gordon Tepper, Hochul’s spokesman, to The Post. But where’s the proof that cutting ties won’t embolden federal agents to act unilaterally?
Nassau County’s agreement with ICE, one of the first of its kind in New York, has been under a microscope since its inception. Reports of substandard conditions for detainees, including inadequate food and questionable water quality, have fueled criticism. Add to that the troubling questions surrounding the death of detained migrant Santos Banegas Reyes in county custody, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Hochul’s rhetoric paints ICE as a menacing force, calling it a “rogue” and “tyrannical” agency during her announcement. She cited tragic events like the Minneapolis shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good to underscore her point. Yet, equating local cooperation with enabling violence feels like a stretch when the real issue might be federal accountability, not county partnerships.
Ending these agreements could strip local law enforcement of a critical tool to target violent offenders. Blakeman’s point about coordinated efforts removing dangerous individuals from streets resonates when you consider the alternative: federal agents acting solo, with no local input. It’s not about targeting communities; it’s about keeping them safe.
Over 50 counties in New York manage without 287(g) agreements, as Hochul’s office points out, suggesting public safety isn’t necessarily tied to ICE cooperation. But isn’t it possible that different regions face different challenges? Nassau’s proximity to urban centers might demand a tailored approach, not a one-size-fits-all mandate.
Hochul’s push seems rooted in a broader progressive agenda to distance local governance from federal immigration enforcement. While the intent might be to protect vulnerable populations, the risk of creating a vacuum where federal agents operate without oversight looms large. It’s a gamble that could leave communities caught in the crossfire of policy and enforcement.
Then there’s the legal pushback, with the NYCLU challenging Nassau’s ICE contract in court. Their lawsuit highlights real concerns about how detainees are treated, and those issues must be addressed. But scrapping cooperation entirely feels like throwing out a system that could be reformed instead.
The heart of this debate is trust—trust in local police to prioritize community safety over federal agendas, and trust in state leaders to avoid overreaching mandates. Hochul’s bill might aim to shield residents from perceived federal overreach, but it risks alienating law enforcement, who see ICE partnerships as a necessary tool.
Blakeman’s warning isn’t just political posturing; it’s a call to consider the practical fallout of ideological decisions. If federal agents ramp up presence without local coordination, the very communities Hochul claims to protect could face greater disruption. New Yorkers deserve a policy that balances safety with fairness, not a knee-jerk reaction that swaps one problem for another. The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act might sound noble, but its consequences could hit harder than expected. Let’s hope this debate leads to solutions, not just soundbites.