Federal immigration officials scout warehouses as they eye more detention space

Federal immigration officials have begun purchasing warehouses across the United States to convert into detention and processing facilities, sparking resistance from local communities and elected officials in multiple states.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has offered limited information about these initiatives, stating only that the sites would be “well structured detention facilities” rather than warehouses. An ICE spokesperson noted that the agency’s efforts to expand detention space should not come as a surprise, given current operational demands.

In Arizona, ICE paid $70 million last month for a large warehouse facility on the northwestern outskirts of Phoenix, according to county records. The city of Surprise issued a statement claiming it had no prior knowledge of the transaction and had not been contacted by any federal agency regarding the building’s intended use.

Similar situations have unfolded across the country. In Maryland, ICE purchased a warehouse in Washington County for $102.4 million, as revealed by local ICE watchdog Project Salt Box. County officials received advance notice that the Department of Homeland Security was considering the site for a “new ICE Baltimore Processing Facility,” potentially including cafeterias, healthcare spaces, and security infrastructure.

The federal government’s ability to bypass local regulations has frustrated many communities. Washington County officials acknowledged their limited authority, stating, “Washington County is not able to legally restrict the federal government’s ability to proceed.” Similarly, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer noted that ICE “is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate.”

Some communities have found ways to resist. In Kansas City, Missouri, the city council passed a five-year moratorium on non-city-run detention facilities on the same day ICE officials were spotted touring a local warehouse. County lawmaker Manny Abarca, who was initially threatened with trespassing when he appeared at the site, later discovered officials were scouting for a 7,500-bed facility. He has since introduced a similar moratorium at the county level.

“When federal power is putting communities on edge, local government has a responsibility to act where we have authority,” Abarca said in a statement.

In Minnesota, public outcry led warehouse owners in both Woodbury and Shakopee to withdraw from potential ICE deals. Utah saw similar results when a local real estate developer announced it would not sell or lease property to the federal government following pushback from Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall.

“Let me be clear: this facility has no place in our city. Whether at that site or anywhere else,” Mendenhall stated in her State of the City address.

Financial concerns have also emerged as a central issue. In Merrimack, New Hampshire, the town council expressed opposition to a potential ICE facility, citing fears that federal acquisition would reduce the city’s property tax base by more than $500,000 annually, shifting costs to other property owners. The town of approximately 30,000 residents has yet to receive a direct response from federal officials.

In Pennsylvania, ICE paid $87.4 million for a nearly 520,000-square-foot warehouse in Berks County, according to a recently recorded deed. The facility had been marketed as a “state-of-the-art logistics center” strategically located between major metropolitan areas.

Public reactions have been mixed. In Virginia’s Hanover County, officials are exploring legal options after learning of ICE’s plans to purchase and operate a processing facility in a commercial area with retail, hotels, and restaurants. At a packed public meeting, residents voiced opinions both supporting and opposing the facility.

The wave of warehouse acquisitions represents a significant expansion of ICE’s detention infrastructure across the country. While federal authorities continue to move forward with these plans, the pattern of local resistance suggests ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and community concerns about impacts on resources, infrastructure, and local autonomy.