Alarm as massive detention centers descend on rural communities: 'People are waking up' ​

For the last year, Elianis Gautier Peraza has been working to influence city governments across Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley to pass ordinances restricting federal immigration enforcement.

The 38-year-old, who moved to the United States from Puerto Rico in 2018, lives in Forks Township, a small and conservative community. While her township is unlikely to budge, she’s worked with immigrants’ rights advocates and members of her Democratic Socialists of America chapter to focus on cities around the Lehigh Valley.

But results have been mixed.

When an ICE raid in Bethlehem resulted in 17 people being detained in June, 2025, advocates with the DSA organized to get 17 people to hold a minute of silence during the public comment period there.

Maryland ramps up legal action against federal immigration facilities

While the city has released a statement saying it wants immigrants to feel safe, Gautier Peraza said elected officials have declined to take up legislation reining in federal immigration enforcement.

A similar push was more successful in Allentown, where a non-cooperation policy was adopted.

Easton passed a resolution urging city employees not to aid immigration enforcement, but stopped short of passing legislation that would bar them from doing so.

Gautier Peraza is hopeful immigrant advocates like her are building momentum.

“People are beginning to wake up,” she said, and noted that some Lehigh County council members, and officials on city council in the region have taken up their cause. “There’s a lot of people out there very engaged.”

Since the beginning of 2025, dozens of Pennsylvania cities and counties have considered or passed legislation aimed at limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities or supporting immigrant communities. Elected officials in places like Allentown, Easton, Reading, Upper Darby and Narberth, as well as in counties such as Allegheny, Bucks and Montgomery have all passed some form of legislation or resolution aimed at restricting cooperation with immigration officials or protecting residents.

Still others have law enforcement agencies, district attorney’s offices or corrections departments that have agreed to actively cooperate with ICE agents, which means using their employees’ time and available resources to aid in immigration enforcement.

But the patchwork is rapidly changing, and the ability of local governments to take action is limited.

For many elected leaders, whose purview is generally managing the budget and resources of a single municipality or county, they’re having to learn on the fly what they can and can’t do to restrain or support a federal law enforcement agency better-funded than most of the world’s militaries.

“It’s not just municipal government that’s wrestling with this, I think it’s all of us as American citizens,” said John Brenner, executive director of the Pennsylvania Municipal League and the mayor of York from 2002 to 2010. “That’s why you have residents of our communities, whether it’s a city, bureau or township, who are going to their local officials. And I think local officials are trying very diligently to listen to those concerns and try to explain what we can do.”

Communities try to find their way

Since the Trump administration began its immigration enforcement crackdown, Pennsylvanians like Gautier Peraza have begun to ask their elected officials on the municipal, city and county level what they plan to do if federal immigration agents come to their communities in force.

Immigration arrests have surged around the commonwealth. In the first three quarters of 2025, agents arrested 4,800 people, 3.5 times more than they did during the same period in 2024. And nearly 40 percent of those arrested had no criminal histories, according to an analysis by the Capital-Star.

As images from larger, targeted operations in cities like Minneapolis, Chicago and Los Angeles go viral, more municipal and county officials have begun to question what they can do to avoid similar scenes at home.

Dozens of bills that would govern ICE activity across the commonwealth have failed to make progress in the state legislature, where Democrats control the House and Republicans lead the Senate. For many Pennsylvanians, that means local officials may be the only elected politicians they can effectively lobby to enact legislation governing what federal agents can and can’t do in their communities.

And many local officials are feeling the pressure.

“What I hear from our members is that they’re concerned that a large number of ICE enforcement agents will be deployed to either their community or nearby communities, and that that will have an impact on what they’ll do,” Brenner said. “If it’s anything like it was out in Minnesota, that presence drains local resources. And who’s gonna pay for that?”

Difficult discussions in Harrisburg

In Harrisburg, city council members spent the first two months of 2026 debating what an anti-ICE ordinance might look like, spurred in part by the shooting deaths of protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, as well as by months of urging from residents and advocates at home.

By early February, members were ready to put an ordinance forward.

Ausha Green, the chair of the public safety committee, began the public discussion by assuring the audience that had come to watch, “We heard you.”

The initial bill borrowed heavily from a 2024 ordinance passed in Lancaster. That one prohibited the collection of data on residents’ immigration or citizenship status where it isn’t required by law, and reiterated that only the federal government should conduct immigration enforcement.

Over the month of February, as Harrisburg’s ordinance went through its three required readings and a series of amendments, council meetings grew more crowded. There were demonstrations on the sidewalk outside. One public comment period devolved into shouting. Other times, hearings on the bill began to resemble civics lessons.

Council members questioned the city Solicitor Neil Grover on matters such as: can they legally ban ICE from public buildings? He responded that wasn’t likely, but they could in parts that aren’t accessible to the public.

What about the sidewalks around those buildings? Absolutely not, was the answer.

Can they create new mandatory penalties for city employees who are caught aiding federal immigration officials? It’s complicated, Grover noted, but that would likely violate existing union contracts.

As council members sought, under urging from the public, to “add some teeth” to their legislation, as one member put it, Grover had another warning.

“We can’t tell federal agents sent to the city that they can’t be in the city,” he told members of the council. “People need to be realistic about that. We can not take a group of armed officers and send them against another group of armed officers to decide who’s the last person standing.”

So what can be done?

Alex Domingos, an advocacy and policy strategist at the ACLU of Pennsylvania has worked with a number of local governments, including officials in Dauphin County, where Harrisburg is the county seat.

While he advocates for robust anti-ICE policies, he acknowledged that there are limits to what a local government can do.

“No matter what policy is passed locally, they can’t prevent ICE from coming into a town or doing a raid,” he told the Capital-Star. “But they can choose not to expend their own resources or support it voluntarily, absent a [judicial] warrant or a court order.”

Domingos said an ideal policy, from his perspective, would ban local resources from being used to aid federal immigration enforcement. That would include not allowing ICE or CBP agents to use local facilities and equipment, prohibiting local law enforcement from aiding in immigration arrests or even asking people about immigration status in their normal course of duty.

It would also mean not detaining people in local jails and prisons any longer than they would be in normal circumstances because of a DHS request.

While law enforcement would still have to follow any court order requiring their cooperation, under the Trump administration, DHS has increasingly relied on what are called “administrative warrants” and “detainers.”

Detainers are voluntary requests sent to local authorities asking them to hold detainees for an extended period so that ICE or CBP can pick them up and take them into custody. Administrative warrants are signed by government officials, not judges, authorizing searches or arrests.

While they can justify arrests, they do not allow law enforcement to take certain actions that a court order might, like entering private property.

Domingos also advocated for local policies prohibiting agreements with DHS, including 287(g)s.

A number of law enforcement offices around the commonwealth have entered into such agreements, which see their officers receive benefits like training in exchange for aiding in federal immigration enforcement.

Domingos would also like local governments to refrain from collecting information on people’s immigration and citizenship status, except where the law requires it.

“It’s part of a suite of things we like to see,” he said. “It’s enabling all residents of an area to be comfortable interacting with government officials without fear of being denied services or being subject to immigration enforcement because of voluntary collaboration.”

Some leaders in other communities want to go further.

Philadelphia braces itself

Philadelphia has long been rumored as a potential site for a massive ICE deployment like what was seen in Minneapolis. Urgency around preempting such activity grew after the agency bought two warehouses in Pennsylvania that they intend to convert to massive detention centers.

In late January, Philadelphia city council members put forward what advocates see as arguably the most aggressive anti-ICE legislation in the commonwealth.

A package of seven bills called “ICE Out” would prohibit immigration agents from concealing their identities with masks or unmarked vehicles. It would also ban law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration agents, prevent data sharing with federal immigration authorities, and bar city employees from granting immigration agents access to public spaces like libraries and health care centers.

But, it’s unclear if all of these provisions could stand legal scrutiny.

A mask ban in California, for example, has been blocked by a federal judge. But Philadelphia council minority leader Kendra Brooks, who co-authored the city’s bills, said she’s worked with advocates and legislative staff to create the strongest laws possible that she believes can withstand scrutiny.

“My legislative team has been crafting and working with legislative bodies across the commonwealth and across the country on what we should do to prevent ICE from disrupting our city,” she told the Capital-Star. “All of this is all preventative. If we have a plan, then we won’t be caught off guard.”

The bills have not yet passed.

Brenner, the head of the Pennsylvania Municipal League, says he expects some municipalities to push the boundaries with local legislation.

“There’s gonna be places that are going to push the envelope one way or the other,” he said, noting cities like Philadelphia have a history of passing aggressive legislation, like gun restrictions, that have ended up in court. “There are issues like that where places try to go beyond what their purview might be. I think there’s some gray area here with this issue, and it’s going to take some time and we all have to be patient.”

The city of Philadelphia has also roughly doubled its funding for immigration deportation defense, at $950,000, providing legal counsel for immigrants facing deportation.

Advocates have pushed the city to provide even more funding. Shayna Kessler, director of the Vera Institute’s Advancing Universal Representation Initiative, also said she would like to see more cities take up similar initiatives.

“There’s a real urgency and a need for additional municipalities across the state of Pennsylvania to invest in this,” she said. “It’s a really powerful program based in Philadelphia.”

The risks of cooperation

Not all local government officials have supported restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. And it’s not clear how much power some government officials have to stop law enforcement from working with ICE.

Commissioners in Dauphin County, for example, vetoed a bill that would have limited cooperation between law enforcement and federal immigration agents last September.

The resolution, introduced by Commissioner Justin Douglas, who is running for a chance to unseat Republican Rep. Scott Perry in the 10th Congressional District Democratic primary, would have barred county employees from complying with ICE detainer requests that weren’t backed by a court order.

Commissioner George Hartwick, a fellow Democrat who opposed the resolution, argued it was merely “symbolic,” since elected officials like sheriffs and district attorneys are allowed by law to enter agreements with the federal government on their own.

Justin Douglas, a pastor and Dauphin County Commissioner who is running in the Democratic primary to unseat Rep. Scott Perry in Congress, is the first speaker at the Hershey rally. (Photo by Ian Karbal/Capital-Star)

“When we adopt policies that suggest protections where none actually exist under state or federal law, we create false hope for some of the most vulnerable people within our community,” Hartwick said. “Families who may already live in fear of deportation could mistakenly believe that a county policy offers them legal protection when, in truth, it does not.”

Roughly a month after the debate in Dauphin County, a Court of Common Pleas judge sided with Bucks County Sheriff Fred Harran over his decision to enter into a 287(g) agreement with federal immigration agents, despite opposition from county commissioners.

Ultimately, it was rescinded when the county elected a new sheriff who has said he would not work with ICE or CBP, unless required by a court order, and has directed deputies not to ask victims and witnesses of crimes about their immigration or citizenship status.

The case, however, is moving forward under appeal.

“We still have three other defendants in this case who fought for and won a decision — we think a wrong decision — giving a blessing to their 287(g) agreements, and that’s what we’re appealing now,” said Stephen Loney, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which led the case.

The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania also believes the case was wrongly decided in the first go-round, since commissioners are responsible for budgetary decisions and those involving resource management.

“From our position, this is a contract that would require the allocation of resources,” said Kyle Kopko, executive director of the group. “It could result in additional insurance liability, civil liability on the part of the county. And that’s why the county commissioners need to have that final oversight and approval.”

Kopko noted, however, that the association is “agnostic” on whether or not county commissioners should take up ordinances barring or allowing cooperation with immigration officials.

Counties could face legal liability

Douglas, who introduced the Dauphin County resolution, emphasized the point about legal liability, citing a recent example involving his county’s prison.

In July, Dauphin County prison employees turned over a Chinese immigrant named Chaofeng Ge, 32, to ICE. Five days after being sent to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Centre County, Ge died by suicide in federal custody.

PennLIVE reported that Ge had previously attempted suicide in the county prison, an incident that would have been documented in his medical records. But ICE stated in a death report those files were missing when Ge arrived at Moshannon.

Douglas told PennLIVE the records were handed over and, if they weren’t, were never requested by Moshannon staff.

He told the Capital-Star that he couldn’t get into specifics about the case at the request of county attorneys, but said the incident shows the risks local governments take when they collaborate with ICE.

Dauphin County generally does not hold prisoners longer than the end of their scheduled release date for immigration officials.

That’s largely because of a 2010 lawsuit against Lehigh County that resulted in a settlement with a U.S. citizen who claimed he was illegally held on ICE’s request.

Ernesto Galarza was detained for three days in the Lehigh County prison on an immigration agent’s request, and the ACLU of Pennsylvania sued on his behalf.

The case resulted in Allentown and a city detective paying Galarza $25,000 in a settlement, and the county paying him $95,000 and agreeing to adopt a policy that they would only honor ICE detention requests with a court order. ICE and the United States also paid $25,000 to Galarza in a settlement.

The next frontline

Two communities have found themselves on the frontlines of a new legal fight in the Trump administration’s push to more aggressively enforce federal immigration laws, and it has local officials facing hard decisions.

In January, it was revealed ICE purchased two warehouses in Pennsylvania, one in Upper Bern Township in Berks County and the other in Tremont, in Schuylkill County.

It’s part of a plan to purchase and convert such facilities around the country into detention processing centers for immigrants arrested by the Department of Homeland Security, which have faced pushback from community members and human rights advocates.

The two proposed detention centers in the state would house 1,500 and 7,500 inmates, respectively.

According to Gov. Josh Shapiro, even Republican officials in the affected areas have expressed alarm at their prospects. He also said that the warehouse purchases were made in secret, bypassing local authorities’ input.

“To hear from Republicans and Democrats alike expressing opposition to this, I think speaks volumes about how unwanted these facilities are in our communities,” Shapiro said at a press conference in Berks County earlier this month, after meeting with local officials from both communities.

The plans for the warehouses have also raised concerns about whether or not local infrastructure can handle an influx of detainees that would roughly double the population of the rural part of the commonwealth.

Elected officials in the two counties have raised concerns about the area’s water and sewage capacity, which would be heavily burdened by an influx of thousands of prisoners.

Following Shapiro’s meeting with elected leaders from both counties, the state Department of Environmental Protection issued orders outlining these concerns and blocking the use of the facilities unless the federal government can comply with state water regulations.

The proposed centers have spurred other elected officials to act preemptively.

Montgomery County passed a resolution that says it intends to bar 287(g) agreements with the county, and that county resources will not be used for immigration enforcement. The county cited the facilities as a possible indication of increased immigration enforcement in the area.

Bucks County passed a resolution vowing to oppose any detention centers within its county lines, though none have been proposed.

And Northampton County passed a resolution discouraging property owners from selling land to ICE for the purposes of housing detainees. County officials there had previously issued an open letter to warehouse owners, asking them not to sell or lease their properties to ICE.

However, it’s municipalities, not counties, that generally have zoning authority in Pennsylvania.

While not every fight has been a victory, immigrant advocates have been encouraged by governments that have moved to pass legislation supporting immigrant communities.

After Montgomery County passed a resolution earlier this month limiting cooperation with federal immigration agents and barring county property from being used for civil immigration enforcement, the Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition attributed the move to the work of advocates.

“To the community leaders, legal experts, and residents who spent the last year writing letters, packing hearing rooms, and sharing stories: this victory is yours,” the statement said. “Your refusal to accept the status quo — especially in the face of over 125 confirmed ICE detentions in our county— forced a conversation that couldn’t be ignored.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.