Policing Undocumented Immigrants in New York: Balancing Enforcement and Integration

Abstract

Immigration policies vary significantly among U.S. states, leading to diverse law enforcement practices that uniquely affect immigrant (documented and undocumented) communities. This article explores New York’s immigration strategies within the framework of federal immigration law, pointing out the city’s misalignment with federal policing practices of immigrant populations. It emphasizes the urgent need for federal immigration reform. Additionally, the article advocates for a more integrationist, balanced and humane approach to policing undocumented immigrants. The article substantiates its claims using secondary source data, official reports, scholarly works, and Integration Theory in four key ways. First, it analyses New York’s immigration strategies within the context of federal immigration law. Second, it examines the city’s local government and non-governmental organizations’ collaborative efforts with federal immigration agencies to manage undocumented immigrants. Third, it discusses Integration Theory and delves into the policing experiences of immigrants in New York. Lastly, the article advocates for a more balanced approach to policing undocumented immigrants, highlighting the necessity of law enforcement and the importance of nurturing safe and cohesive communities.

Keywords

policing immigration immigrant communities New York integration theory

Introduction

Immigration remains a contentious issue in the United States (U.S.), sparking significant debate between supporters and opponents (Batalova, 2024). The divide generally falls along state lines, with more conservative, Republican-leaning states advocating for strict enforcement and limited immigration. In contrast, more liberal, Democrat-leaning states favor fewer restrictions and less stringent enforcement. Consequently, immigration is a highly partisan issue in the country. Although some U.S. states have enacted laws and enforcement actions that conflict with federal law, they cannot regulate immigration directly since it falls under federal jurisdiction. However, states can pass legislation affecting immigrants’ benefits or documentation requirements within their borders (Tsigler, 2023). This discrepancy between state and federal approaches has led to a lack of cohesion in immigration law and enforcement. Moreover, even at the federal level, immigration laws are often unclear and lack comprehensive legislation to guide the process effectively. Thus, federal immigration reform is urgently needed.

According to Batalova (2024):

Immigration has been a contested public policy issue at various points in U.S. history and has been elevated as a top concern for the public amid a recent record encounters of asylum seekers and other migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border (Batalova, 2024, p. 1).

Between 2021 and 2024, the number of migrants at the southern U.S. border has increased exponentially, putting a strain on U.S. states to cope with the burden. During the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, immigration slowed. However, as of 2022, there were 46.2 million immigrants living in the U.S., comprising about 14% of the total population (Batalova, 2024). However, between 2021 and 2022, that number grew by 2% (Batalova, 2024). In December 2023, the U.S. Border Patrol encountered 250,000 migrants at the border between the U.S. and Mexico; the highest monthly total increased over the previous month of May 2022, where 224,000 encounters were seen (Gramlich, 2024).

In the context of this article, policing refers to the role of state and local law enforcement in implementing federal immigration laws. Drawing on Ericson and Haggerty’s (1997) definition, policing here can be understood as the mechanisms through which social order is maintained, including surveillance, rule enforcement, and disciplinary procedures. As such, this article discusses how states like New York employ various methods for policing immigrants, which creates challenges for both citizens and immigrants (documented and undocumented). These differing enforcement approaches can contribute to community safety concerns, particularly when individuals who should be deported remain within the community.

Furthermore, Bittner (1970) described policing as the use of legitimate force by the state to ensure compliance with its laws and regulations. This aligns with the role of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is tasked with securing borders, collaborating with local law enforcement, and tracking undocumented individuals who have violated U.S. laws. Here, policing serves as a mechanism to protect national security and public safety by enforcing immigration laws.

Reiner’s (2010) perspective on policing, which involves the practices, institutions, and actors responsible for maintaining social control, is also relevant within the broader framework of immigration federalism. Policing in this context represents the enforcement of federal removal policies at the local level, often leading to conflicts between federal mandates and local priorities, such as community safety and the protection of immigrant rights.

Additionally, the article explores the tension between enforcement and integration policies, suggesting that enforcement policies are inherently integration policies because they significantly affect immigrants’ prospects for becoming part of the community. Policing, in this view, encompasses both the refusal to assist federal enforcement as a means to protect immigrant communities and the cooperation required to deport or incentivize immigrants to leave. This nuanced understanding of policing highlights its complex role in balancing enforcement with the broader goals of social order and integration.

The Political Context

There is currently a political debate surrounding the issue of immigration. It is widely acknowledged that the flow of migrants across “the southern U.S. border in recent months has shattered records” (Hamad, 2024, p. 1). However, migrants are arriving using other routes as well as crossings into the U.S. occurring in other ways, such as at the northern Canadian–U.S. border. Many states, particularly Texas, are overwhelmed by the influx of migrants, which has strained state resources and created challenges for residents (Chishti & Putzel-Kavanaughn, 2024).

Research shows that immigrants make significant contributions to American society. One study indicated that “immigrants put in $115 billion more to the Medicare Trust Fund than they took out between 2002 and 2009” (Hamad, 2024, p. 1). However, at the same time, President Biden’s discussion about providing healthcare to immigrants through the Affordable Healthcare Act, commonly known as Obamacare, has many U.S. citizens concerned. While Republican policymakers want to shut the border down, Democrat policymakers want to leave the border completely open, and finding common ground has historically been problematic (Hamad, 2024). The failure to find common ground among policymakers concerning immigration has exacerbated the divide among U.S. citizens on the issue of immigration.

However, even the partisan divide has experienced shifts across time and is stated to be what is referred to as:

the racialization of partisanship. On the one side is the changing party alignment of significant sectors of the White voting population. As late as 1980, more Whites identified as Democrats than as Republicans. By 2010, it was the reverse: White Republicans substantially outnumbered White Democrats, a pattern also evident in 2020 (Foner, 2023, p. 7).

The educational levels also influence which party White registered voters gravitate toward. For example, White voters without a college degree leaned more towards the Republican party, while those with a college degree increasingly aligned with the Democratic party (Foner, 2023). Among White voters with a college degree, there is less intense fear of immigrants compared to those with lower levels of education (Foner, 2023). This educational divide significantly impacts perceptions of immigration. Working-class White voters often view immigrants as direct competitors in the job market, heightening their fears. As Foner (2023) articulates, these voters “feel that immigrants are cutting in line, sailing past the Statue of Liberty into a diminishing supply of good jobs at the expense of White men and women” (Foner, 2023, p. 8). This perception underscores the economic anxieties fueling opposition to immigration among less-educated White voters.

Immigration has evolved alongside significant societal and political changes. One notable change is the movement of working-class White voters toward the Republican Party, influenced by factors such as the LGBTQ+ agenda, the decline in manufacturing, market globalization, and the erosion of organized labor. Growing wealth inequality has further reshaped political party dynamics in the U.S. (Foner, 2023). New York has distinct laws governing immigrants. This study explores how New York’s immigration strategies align with federal immigration laws, ultimately impacting how immigrants are policed within the state. Additionally, it evaluates the cooperative mechanisms employed by state, non-state, and federal agencies to address undocumented immigration. Integration theory is explained and applied to understand the experiences of immigrants in New York. The study emphasizes the need for balanced and humane policing approaches in managing undocumented immigration in the state.

The Approach

This qualitative article benefits from desk-based information and the utilization of secondary data sources. It uses reports from official U.S. governmental sources and U.S. laws. It also uses scholarly works and ground the arguments in the theoretical framework of the Integration Theory. The following section examines integration theory, specific to political immigration, and how it applies to immigration law enforcement matters.

The Integration Theory

The renowned neo-functionalist Ernst Haas defines integration as a process “whereby political actors in several, distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new center, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states” (Haas, 1958, p. 16). This definition of Integration Theory broadly refers to a process of uniting and organizing states and regions (Ilievski, 2015). The unification and organization of these states and regions may take the form of economic, political, social, cultural, and military cooperation and integration. In this theory, economic integration involves the removal of barriers to trade and harmonizing economic policies. Political integration involves the creation of common governance policies and the sharing of sovereignty. Social exchanges are the outcome of social integration. It promotes social justice, equality, and the integration of marginalized groups within the state. Cultural integration promotes cultural exchanges among states, including educational exchange programs, cultural exchange initiatives, and the promotion of cultural diversity. Finally, military integration refers to a process of collaboration on military matters. It involves joint military partnerships and sharing intelligence, resources, and strategies.

Political integration may be applied to various sectors, including U.S. immigration (Ilievski, 2015). As Ilievski (2015) noted, the four main elements of political integration are a unified legal framework, common institutions, decision-making centers, and the projection of a common identity. Within this theory, immigrants who are subjected to integration experience often face limitations in their freedom and cultural norms as they adapt to the newly established political community. They assimilate the established goals, accept methods of achieving them, and adhere to the common decision-making centers and institutions.

A central tenet of integration theory is the process of uniting important factors of states based on common needs and shared interests. This unification tends to erode national sovereignty between individual countries and states in the U.S. (Ilievski, 2015). The issues of a unified legal framework, common institution and decision-making apply to the U.S. federal government immigration laws and policies. The U.S. Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) governs and enforces immigration laws (Tsigler, 2023). The DHS manages the agencies that deal with immigration law, including (1) the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (2) U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, and (3) The U.S. ICE.

The Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, as amended, and other U.S. Code and Statutes govern immigration at the federal level. However, immigrant enforcement and settlement are fundamentally territorial and spatial (Rodriguez, 2017). Rodriguez (2017) noted that “the federal government has a monopoly over the terms of immigration law” (Rodriquez, 2017, p. 509). However, due to American federalism, localities and states have historically assisted in shaping policy on immigration.

Hence, the Integration Theory is not popular among all U.S. states that cling to their Constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment, which delegates rights to the states rather than the federal government (Congress.gov, 2024). When integration is achieved between several institutions or sectors, a spontaneous spillover effect results in further integration (Ilievski, 2015). For example, aligning the federal powers with the powers of other U.S. states may lead to integration in the policing and immigration enforcement areas in those states. When common institutions govern any social issue, including immigration, the result is that other sectors would become integrated (Ilievski, 2015).

An important strand of the integration theory is neo-functionalism. Neofunctionalism at the global level is described as “the process whereby nations forget the desire and ability to conduct foreign and key domestic policies independently of each other, seeking instead to make joint decisions or to delegate the decision-making process to central organs” (Ilievski, 2015, p. 6). Hence, political integration, joint decision-making, the delegation of decision-making, embracing special decision-making policies, and creating new central organizations are the main tenets of neo-functionalism’s political integration theory (Ilievski, 2015). In the current political context, U.S. immigration occurs in an increased environment of nationalism, right-wing populism, and anti-immigrant perspectives. In this context, debates about immigration are never neutral, as they generate controversy and are often intense (Laubenthal, 2023). However, integration theory is founded on the idea that it is possible to have societal unity despite cultural differences. By integrating different ethnic enclaves, the theory suggests that discrimination would diminish as barriers break down and cooperation spills from similar immigrant enclaves to other culturally diverse immigrant communities (Laubenthal, 2023). When applied rationally, integration theory can potentially change how the federal powers and individual states approach immigration through a spillover effect.

In addition, although the U.S. has hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year, there is a lack of a coherent national immigration policy on integration (De Graauw & Bloemraad, 2017). The U.S.’s Government Accountability Office has revealed that “no single federal entity has been designated to lead the creation, implementation, and coordination of a national immigrant integration capability” (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011, p. 25 cited in De Graauw & Bloemraad, 2017, p. 106). The following section explores the benefits extended to immigrants residing in New York.

Navigating Immigration Federalism: The New York Dilemma

New York’s attitude toward immigration is deeply rooted in its history as a major entry point for immigrants in the 1800s (O’Malley, 2015). During that era, New York’s merchants and industrialists were eager to welcome immigrants, needing a large labor force to support their businesses. As a result, they held considerable influence over the immigration system and policies, ensuring that the city remained open to newcomers (O’Malley, 2015).

Recent data from the New York Comptroller’s Office highlights the economic impact of immigrants, noting that a 10% reduction in asylum seekers would result in nearly 9 billion dollars in losses for just 1 year (Lander, 2024a). Undocumented immigrants also play a crucial role in sustaining programs like Medicaid and Social Security through their substantial tax contributions at both the state and federal levels. In New York State alone, undocumented immigrants paid over 3 billion dollars in taxes (Lander, 2024a). Immigrants have access to a wide range of healthcare services, primarily through the NYC Health + Hospitals network in New York, which provides care regardless of immigration status. This network includes over 70 locations, featuring more than 10 acute care hospitals (Alulema & Pavilon, 2022). Additionally, long-term facilities and community service clinics are available to meet the healthcare needs of immigrants (Alulema & Pavilon, 2022). Public benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid are also accessible to immigrants in New York, reflecting the state’s commitment to supporting its immigrant population (Alulema & Pavilon, 2022). Under Executive Order 41, issued by the Mayor of New York City, immigrants (documented and undocumented) have access to benefits, services, and programs with their confidentiality protected (Stringer, 2015).

In New York, immigrants can also seek a pardon from the governor (Stringer, 2015). Pardons are an untapped power that can protect certain immigrants from deportation and open citizenship pathways (Immigration Pardon Project, 2024). Immigrants, including green card holders, can be deported for a past conviction, even when it is decades old. The convictions that can get someone deported range from felonies to misdemeanors like shoplifting and marijuana possession (Immigration Pardon Project, 2024). Governors can correct the injustices of an immigration and criminal legal system that over-criminalizes immigrants and communities of color. They can show mercy for past offences and end excessive punishments. Governors can also use their power to commute or shorten sentences to protect immigrants from deportation. Sometimes, shortening a sentence by just 1 day could mean the difference between staying in the U.S. and getting deported (Immigration Pardon Project, 2024).

Immigrants are eligible for public services, including transportation, cash assistance, public housing, and the municipal identification (ID) NYC Card. This ID card, regardless of immigration status, helps immigrants access services, discounts, public buildings, and financial institution services like checking accounts. Immigrants can attend college without institutions being required to report their immigration status unless they hold a foreign visa. The Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act safeguards all students’ personal information. New York facilitates lawful permanent residence for immigrants through family sponsorship by U.S. citizens, employer petitions, and the U.S. State Department’s visa lottery. Immigrants can also obtain legal status for humanitarian reasons. Moreover, New York provides immigrants with financing for business start-ups through various programs (Stringer, 2015).

Despite immigrants’ numerous benefits to New York’s social and economic fabric, the state struggles to shelter the daily influx of newcomers. New York has received 180,000 immigrants between 2022 and 2024 (Donaldson, 2024). The strain that the number of immigrants is placing on the services and programs in the state is highlighted by immigrants from Mexico, Venezuela, West Africa, and China sleeping in a church (Wessler, 2024). According to a spokesperson for the mayor, the city has exhausted its financial resources and space to care for the immigrants (Wessler, 2024). Additionally, the New York City Comptroller’s office reported that in 2023 the city implemented a 60-day stay policy, limiting free shelter to 60 days without further procedures or policies for handling immigrant housing (Lander, 2024b). This policy applies even to families with children, reflecting the harsh reality that New York lacks the funding to house many immigrants long-term (Lander, 2024b).

New York also faces a shortage of case management workers who can assist new arrivals in finding employment within the 60-day shelter period (Lander, 2024b). Once immigrants leave the housing the city provides, there is no system to maintain contact with them. If they move outside New York, they must connect with new legal service providers to obtain work authorizations, which often delays their asylum applications (Lander, 2024b). This gap in support has left many immigrants vulnerable to human trafficking, particularly sex trafficking (Lander, 2024a). Moreover, New York has not assessed the effectiveness of its programs or the impact of the 60-day rule on immigrants and the city as a whole (Lander, 2024b). Despite these challenges, the New York Comptroller’s Office reported that immigrants in New York are more likely to be employed than in other states (Lander, 2024a). Additionally, approximately 30% to 40% more immigrants than native-born New York residents benefit from SNAP, Medicare, long-term healthcare facilities, and community service clinics (Alulema & Pavilon, 2022).

Even though the city is being faced with significant resource constraints, New York continues to be dedicated to its immigrant population (documented and undocumented) by enacting and enforcing mechanisms to safeguard immigrants from federal prosecution and policing. Executive Order 41 only permits immigration status inquiries if an immigrant commits a crime, not if they are witnesses or victims. Additionally, Local Laws 58 and 59 restrict the conditions under which New York City can comply with ICE detainer requests. These laws prevent the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the New York Department of Correction from honoring detainers unless ICE presents a federal judge-signed warrant indicating probable cause, the immigrant has committed a serious or violent crime within 5 years, or they appear on the terrorist watch list (Stringer, 2015).

New York’s immigration policies diverge from federal immigration policies since they stand in the way of ICE’s investigating and enforcing immigration law due to the confidentiality laws and policies of New York. Furthermore, New York’s Assembly Bill 9612 diverges from federal laws, enabling undocumented immigrant students to receive in-state tuition and an allowance for scholarships and financial aid (Tsigler, 2023). At the federal level, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for financial education aid (U.S. Department of Education, 2024).

New York’s efforts to offer sufficient shelter and resources for immigrants while protecting them from federal prosecution and policing highlight the complexities of immigration federalism in the U.S. and the difficulties local governments encounter under federal immigration policies (Wessler, 2024). To fully understand these complexities and challenges, it is essential to divide the discussion of immigration federalism into two distinct categories: enforcement federalism and integration federalism (Rodriguez, 2017). The difference lies in the political, legal, and institutional conditions that govern each category.

Enforcement federalism primarily deals with the local implementation of federal removal policies. This aspect of immigration federalism involves significant debates over intergovernmental relations and the legal authority for removing immigrants. Local governments are often caught in the crossfire between federal mandates and local interests, leading to tensions over who has the ultimate authority in immigration enforcement. For instance, while federal authorities may mandate the removal of undocumented immigrants, local governments may prioritize community safety and cohesion, sometimes resulting in sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These policies can create friction between local and federal authorities, complicating the enforcement landscape and leading to inconsistent application of immigration laws across different jurisdictions.

Integration federalism, on the other hand, concerns:

affirmative strategies to either promote or prevent immigration policy incorporation into the body politic and may have little if anything to do with federal policy, which is itself limited in scope and ambition (Rodriguez, 2017, p. 511).

In the environment of legal questions, integration has to do with bureaucratic capacity and political will, which the states have influenced in setting out the integration agenda, and it is held that any agenda on integration must necessarily consider the localities and states. Rodriguez (2017) revealed that the:

Enforcement-integration dichotomy is too stark. Enforcement policy heavily affects immigrants’ prospects for integration. Enforcement policy is an integration policy. Enforcement federalism encompasses local refusal to assist federal enforcement to protect immigrants in the community, as well as federal-state cooperation to deport or otherwise create incentives for immigrants to leave (Rodriquez, 2017, p. 511).

Therefore, the localities and states heavily influence federal immigration policies and actions. If a location represents a receptive environment for integration, it affects the nature and size of enforcement in a specific setting and ongoing debates about legal authority (Rodriguez, 2017).

States affect federal immigration enforcement because when an immigrant is convicted under the laws of a state, the immigrant will meet the grounds for removal set out in the U.S. Code; therefore, the state and federal criminal justice system contribute to the immigration bureaucracy (Rodriguez, 2017). While the enforcement bureaucracy at the federal level is quite vast, there are critical limitations. For example, DHS is highly dependent on the states to identify, apprehend, and remove noncitizens and is dependent on state, county, and local police. Notably, the immigrant system is dependent on intergovernmental relations and lacks coherency. This has historically been the case, thereby creating friction between local and state jurisdictions and the federal government. Moreover, ideologically, the police and mayors of cities that are large and have many immigrants are more likely to conflict with federal (Republican) administrations that favor the strict enforcement of immigration removal policies. In contrast, the same can be said for smaller cities or less populated areas that are more likely to conflict with a Democratic administration.

Pro-enforcement states like Texas are much more likely to resist federal government policies under a Democratic administration, which is the case now. However, federalism logistics have sometimes transcended partisan agreement; for example, the enforcement and removal were robust under the Obama administration. Due to the intergovernmental complexity, enforcement will always be mixed (Rodriguez, 2017).

Some U.S. states are working collaboratively with the federal government on the immigration issue (De Graauw & Bloemraad, 2017). For example, the Mayor of Nashville signed an executive order in 2014, backed by department heads, Chamber of Commerce members, Council members, and others, to create programs to integrate immigrants into the city (De Graauw & Bloemraad, 2017). As of 2016, 41 cities in the U.S. had established 44 formal offices dedicated to immigrant communities and affairs. The efforts of those offices are centered on cooperation with stakeholders at the local level, which includes city officials and law enforcement. However, those cities have been constrained by federal powers since:

Legal status—whether citizenship through naturalization, legalization of undocumented residents, or temporary protection from deportation—must emanate from the federal government. Without federal immigration reform and a cohesive national integration program, the impact of city and state immigrant affairs offices will have limits (De Graauw & Bloemraad, 2017, p. 114).

The subsequent section explicates the policing of undocumented immigrants within New York.

Policing Undocumented Immigration: Federal Cooperation or Contempt in New York

Estimates indicate that since 2024, approximately 476,000 undocumented immigrants have resided in New York (New York City Comptroller, 2024). However, the U.S. has instituted several mechanisms to control immigration. Among these are border and visa controls at the national level and collaboration at the state level. Of the 193 countries holding United Nations membership, 41 are part of the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. This Program allows the U.S. DHS and the U.S. Department of State to permit residents from 41 countries to enter the U.S. for business or pleasure with stays up to 90 days without a visa. Citizens from the other remaining countries must obtain a visa before arriving in the U.S. Visas are checked at each air and seaport before foreign citizens can access the U.S. Despite the border and visa control measures, illegal immigration occurs; as such, the federal government relies on state cooperation to actively police immigrants.

ICE, Laws, and Executive Orders

The U.S. ICE team’s main responsibility is to protect the U.S.’s national security and public safety by conducting criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws. ICE officers are charged with the mandate to secure U.S.’s borders and protect the integrity of the immigration architecture. To protect the immigration system, ICE officers are provided with the requisite tools to enforce immigration laws at the borders and inside the U.S. where immigration violations occur. The ICE agents work closely with law enforcement partners internally within the U.S. and externally with other law enforcers globally. ICE agents partner with federal, state and local prisons to utilize biometric and biographic identification of undocumented individuals who have violated the laws in the U.S. and are incarcerated. Also, ICE agents, through the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center, collaborate with law enforcement partners using technology to track foreign-born persons who have been charged with criminal offences.

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act was passed to strengthen U.S. border controls by monitoring those who overstayed in the U.S. This Act stipulates that those who abuse their visas by staying in the U.S. unlawfully for 180 to 365 days without a pardon are not allowed to enter the U.S. for 3 years. However, violators who remain in the U.S. for more than 365 days cannot enter the country for 10 years unless they receive a waiver (U.S. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, 1996).

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act was passed to structure U.S. immigration law. It has been amended to coalesce immigration provisions and address current immigration matters.

Section 287 (g) of this Act allows ICE agents to authorize state and local law enforcement officers to execute stipulated immigration functions with the ICE agency’s directive and supervision (U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952). Furthermore, this provision empowers ICE and Enforcement Removal Operation agents to establish partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies in deporting individuals who are not U.S. citizens and have been imprisoned. The execution of deportation means that such individuals will not be released into U.S. society.

There are two types of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, as indicated through Section 287 (g). First is the Jail Enforcement Model, and second is the Warrant Service Officer Model. The Jail Enforcement Model targets immigrants having criminal charges or pending criminal ones with deportation. This is normally done with the assistance of state and local law enforcers once an immigrant is arrested. The Warrant Service Officer Model, on the other hand, targets immigrants for deportation. This is done via ICE’s training and certifying state and local law enforcers to execute warrants on immigrants in local and state jails and prisons.

Since May 2024, ICE has created partnership agreements with 60 law enforcement agencies operating in 16 states to assist in executing Section 287 (g) of the Jail Enforcement Model (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2024). It also has a Warrant Service Officer Model with 75 law enforcement agencies across 11 states. In the case of New York, the local government has taken a more lenient approach and desires to keep ICE from identifying and deporting immigrants (Stringer, 2015). Only the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office has partnered with ICE to execute the Jail Enforcement Model since June 10, 2020 (New York’s Rensselaer County Memorandum of Agreement, 2020).

The city has also implemented several laws to protect undocumented immigrants from ICE, emphasizing the city’s commitment to being a sanctuary city. One pivotal piece of legislation is the “Detainer Discretion Act” (Local Law 62 of 2011), which restricts the Department of Correction from honoring ICE detainers unless the individual has been convicted of a violent or serious crime (Cardozo School of Law & Immigrant Defense Project, 2014). Another critical law is the “ICE Detainer Discretion Act of 2014” (Local Law 21), which further narrows the criteria for cooperation with ICE, only allowing compliance if the detainer request is accompanied by a judicial warrant (Cardozo School of Law & Immigrant Defense Project, 2014).

Additionally, Executive Order 41, issued in 2003, prohibits city employees from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status unless necessary to determine eligibility for a benefit or service (City of New York, 2003a). Executive Order 34 reinforces these protections by prohibiting city law enforcement from honoring ICE detainers without a warrant and ensuring that city resources are not used for federal immigration enforcement (City of New York, 2003b). These laws and executive orders collectively create a robust framework that limits ICE’s ability to operate within New York City, aiming to build trust between immigrant communities and local authorities.

The New York for All Bill

In New York, ICE immigrant arrests from 2016 to 2018 increased by 53%, which is higher than the national rate (New York Immigration Coalition, 2024). The proposed “New York for All” bill aims to protect undocumented immigrants by prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, specifically ICE, without a judicial warrant. This stance directly conflicts with federal immigration policies that rely on local cooperation for enforcement (New York State Senate, 2022). The bill seeks to ensure that state and local resources are not used to assist in federal immigration enforcement, thus promoting community trust and public safety (New York Immigration Coalition, 2024). By limiting local involvement in federal immigration activities, the bill opposes the broader objectives of federal immigration law enforcement.

New York Civil Liberties Union and New York Immigration Coalition

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) play vital roles in balancing enforcement and integration in New York by challenging federal immigration policies, advocating for immigrant rights, and ensuring that local law enforcement operates in ways that foster trust and integration within immigrant communities. The NYCLU works to address the negative impacts of immigration enforcement on minority and immigrant populations. Specifically, the NYCLU focuses on reducing the harmful consequences of practices like stop-and-frisk, which disproportionately affect immigrant communities. The NYCLU argues that such policing tactics erode trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, thereby compromising public safety and community cohesion (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2024). In the first quarter of 2024 alone, the NYPD conducted 6,110 stop-and-frisk incidents and 225,672 traffic stops. Of the pedestrians stopped, 59% were Black and 32% were Latino, highlighting the racial disparities inherent in these practices (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2024). The racialized nature of these stops becomes apparent when compared to the fact that the population of New York City comprises approximately 32% White, 8% Black or African American, 5% Asian, and 11% Hispanic or Latino (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

By advocating for policies that limit the cooperation of local law enforcement with ICE, the NYCLU actively resists enforcement practices that could lead to the indiscriminate detention of undocumented immigrants. For example, the NYCLU supported legislation that prohibits city agencies from complying with ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant. This legislative effort reflects their broader goal of reducing ICE’s power in New York and fostering a safer environment for immigrants to integrate into their communities without fear of deportation (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2024).

According to NYCLU data, over 70% of ICE detainers in New York target individuals without criminal convictions, highlighting the broad and often indiscriminate nature of federal immigration enforcement (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2024). This data supports the organization’s stance that local non-cooperation policies enhance public safety by encouraging immigrant communities to report crimes without fear of deportation. The NYCLU also provides legal support and representation to undocumented immigrants facing detention and deportation, often challenging the legality of ICE’s actions in court. Their advocacy efforts have led to significant legal victories, including court rulings that limit ICE’s power and protect immigrants’ rights (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2024).

In a similar vein, the NYIC adopts a dual approach of cooperation with local authorities and resistance to federal immigration policies. The NYIC advocates for access to essential services for immigrants, regardless of their legal status, by working with local agencies and non-profits. For instance, NYIC partners with the New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) to ensure that social assistance programs reach immigrant communities. By facilitating access to healthcare, education, and legal assistance, the NYIC contributes to the integration of immigrants into New York’s social fabric. At the same time, the NYIC opposes federal immigration policies that it perceives as discriminatory, such as those leading to mass deportations. This advocacy helps balance the enforcement of immigration laws with the protection of immigrant rights, promoting a community-oriented approach to policing (New York Immigration Coalition, 2024). According to a report by the New York City MOIA, NYIC’s programs have reached over 200,000 immigrants annually, demonstrating a substantial impact on the immigrant community (MOIA, 2022). This cooperation extends to promoting policies that align with federal regulations, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Temporary Protected Status, ensuring that eligible immigrants can benefit from these protections.

The NYCLU and NYIC’s efforts are pivotal in ensuring that New York’s approach to immigration policing balances enforcement with integration. By limiting federal immigration enforcement and enhancing community trust, these organizations help create an environment where immigrants can integrate more easily, while still adhering to local and state laws.

Conclusion

The study aimed to explore the intersection of enforcement and integration in New York’s approach to policing undocumented immigrants, focusing on the dynamic interaction among federal, state, and non-state actors as they navigate the challenges posed by immigration federalism, where local and federal priorities often clash. The study found that New York adopts a balanced approach, attempting to protect immigrant rights while maintaining public safety. Policies such as Executive Orders and local laws limit the extent to which New York cooperates with federal immigration authorities like ICE, demonstrating the city’s commitment to safeguarding immigrant communities.

Furthermore, the involvement of non-governmental organizations, such as the NYCLU and the NYIC, has been pivotal in advocating for immigrant rights and providing support for marginalized communities. These efforts underscore the complexities of balancing enforcement with integration, highlighting the ongoing tensions between federal and local policies. The findings suggest that New York’s model provides a framework for other states seeking to navigate similar challenges in immigration enforcement and integration.

The findings reveal that New York’s approach to immigration is heavily influenced by its sanctuary city status, which aims to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Local laws and policies, such as Executive Orders 41 and 34, reflect New York’s efforts to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation while fostering trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. However, the study also highlights the tensions that arise from balancing enforcement and integration, particularly in cases where individuals with criminal records remain within communities. Despite these challenges, New York has demonstrated a commitment to supporting its immigrant population, offering access to public services and legal protections that promote integration while still adhering to the rule of law. Ultimately, the study underscores the need for a more coherent federal immigration policy that balances enforcement with the humane treatment of immigrants, as local governments like New York continue to navigate the complexities of immigration federalism.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Suzette A. Haughton is a Professor and Head of the Department of Government at The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus. She lectures on International Security Issues and has published on borders, border security and border disputes within the Western Hemisphere. She is also a fellow with the Caribbean Policy Consortium.

Cush Sewell Lewis is a PhD candidate at the Department of Government at The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus. He has contributed to many technical reports on security-related issues within the Caribbean. His PhD thesis focuses on Caribbean food security, specifically in Jamaica.

References

Alulema

Pavilon

(2022). Immigrants’ use of New York City programs, services, and benefits: Examining the impact of fear and other barriers to access (pp. 1–69). Center for Migration Studies. https://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Immigrants-Use-of-New-York-City-Programs-Services-and-Benefits-CMS-Report-013122-FINAL.pdf

Batalova

(2024, March 13). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Migration Policy Institute, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/FRS-PRINT-2024-FINAL.pdf

Bittner

(1970). The functions of the police in modern society: A review of background factors, current practices, and possible role models. National Institute of Mental Health.

Cardozo School of Law & Immigrant Defense Project. (2014). New York City new detainer discretion law chart and practice advisory. https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Practice-Advisory-2014-Detainer-Discretion-Law-PEP.pdf

Chishti

Putzel-Kavanaughn

(2024, August 1). After crisis of unprecedented migrant arrivals, US cities settle into new normal. The Migration Policy Institute, Policy Beat. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-cities-innovations-integrate-arrival

City of New York. (2003a). Executive order 41. Office of the Mayor. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/eo-41.pdf

City of New York. (2003b). Executive order 34. Office of the Mayor. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/eo-34.pdf

Congress.gov. (2024). Current legislative activities, 118th Congress (2023–2024). https://www.congress.gov/

De Graauw

Bloemraad

. (2017). Working together: Building successful policy and program partnership for immigrant integration. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(1), 105–123.

10.

Donaldson

(2024). Following the asylum-seeker odyssey: A timeline. https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2024/04/following-asylum-seeker-odyssey/382850/

11.

Ericson

R. V.

Haggerty

K. D.

(1997). Policing the risk society. University of Toronto Press.

12.

Foner

(2023). Immigration and the transformation of American society: Politics, the economy, and popular culture. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(1), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2236906

13.

Gramlich

(2024, February 15). Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit a record high at the end of 2023. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/

14.

Hamad

(2024). Immigrants to the United States contribute to society: Here are 3 ways to support their transition. Health Affairs Scholar, 2(3), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae019

15.

Haas

E. B.

(1958). The uniting of Europe. Political, social, and economic forces 1950–1957. Stanford University Press.

16.

Ilievski

N. L.

(2015). The concept of political integration: The perspectives of neofunctionalist theory. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 1(1), 1–14.

17.

Immigration Pardon Project. (2024). Pardon: Immigrant clemency project. https://immigrantpardonproject.com/

18.

Lander

(2024a). Facts, not fear: How welcoming immigrants benefits New York City. New York City Comptroller. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/facts-not-fear-how-welcoming-immigrants-benefits-new-york-city/

19.

Lander

(2024b). Report on the investigation of the implementation of the “60-day rule” for asylum-seeker families. New York City Comptroller. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/report-on-the-investigation-of-the-implementation-of-the-60-day-rule-for-asylum-seeker-families/

20.

Laubenthal

(2023). Introduction: Assimilation, integration or transnationalism? An overview of theories of migrant incorporation. International Migration, 61(1), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13118

21.

MOIA. (2021). Annual report: Services and initiatives for immigrants. New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/MOIA_WeLoveImmigrantNYC_AR_2023_final.pdf

22.

New York City Comptroller. (2024, January 4). Facts, not fear: How welcoming immigrants benefits New York City. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/facts-not-fear-how-welcoming-immigrants-benefits-new-york-city/#:~:text=The%20undocumented%20population%20in%20New,compared%20to%20504%2C000%20in%202018

23.

New York Civil Liberties Union. (2024). The rise of stop-and-frisk is a dangerous gift to the Trump agenda. https://www.nyclu.org/commentary/the-rise-of-stop-and-frisk-is-a-dangerous-gift-to-the-trump-agenda

24.

New York Immigration Coalition. (2024). New York for all. https://www.nyic.org/our-work/campaigns/new-york-for-all/#:~:text=wrong%20and%20costly.-,The%20New%20York%20for%20All%20Act%20(S.,property%20without%20a%20judicial%20warrant

25.

New York’s Rensselaer County Memorandum of Agreement. (2020). Memorandum of Agreement 287 (g) Jail Enforcement Model, Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office. ICE. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/287gMOA/287g_JEM_RensselaerCoNY_06-10-2020.pdf

26.

New York State Senate. (2022). NY State Senate Bill 2021-S3076B. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S3076

27.

O’Malley

B. P.

(2015). Protecting the stranger: The origins of US immigration regulation in Nineteenth-Century New York (pp. 1–275). CUNY Academic Works. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2093&context=gc_etds

28.

Reiner

(2010). The politics of the police. Oxford University Press.

29.

Rodriguez

(2017). Enforcement, integration, and the future of immigration federalism. Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS), 5(2), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/233150241700500215

30.

Stringer

S. M.

(2015). Immigrant rights and services manual (pp. 1–72). New York City Comptroller. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/immigrant_rights_and_services_manual.pdf

31.

Tsigler

(2023). New York immigration laws 2024 explained. https://www.tsiglerlaw.com/new-york-immigration-laws/

32.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). New York’s race and ethnicity profile. https://data.census.gov/profile/New_York?g=040XX00US36#race-and-ethnicity

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Federal student aid. Retrieved June 4, 2024, from https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/eligibility/requirements/non-us-citizens

34.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Immigrant integration: U.S. citizenship and immigration services could better assess its grant program. GAO-12-274 [Washington, DC: GAO) In De Graauw, E., & Bloemraad, I. (2017). Working together: Building successful policy and program partnership for immigrant integration. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(1), 105–123. https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/Working_Together_Building_Successful_Policy_and_Program_Partnerships_for_Immigrant_Integration.pdf

35.

U.S. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. (1996). Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigrant_responsibility_act#:~:text=The%20Illegal%20Immigration%20Reform%20and,statutorily%20defined%20periods%20of%20time

36.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2024). Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287 (g) Immigration and Nationality Act. An official website of the United States Government. https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g

37.

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. (1952). US Citizenship and Immigration Service. https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act

38.

Wessler

S. F.

(2024, February 7). Bused from Texas to Manhattan, an immigrant struggles to find shelter. ProbPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/bused-from-texas-to-nyc-immigrant-struggles-to-find-shelter