Glendale, CA – Despite California’s sanctuary laws designed to limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, the city of Glendale continues to hold detainees on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its city jail. This longstanding practice, part of a contract signed in 2007, has recently come under increased scrutiny as critics argue it undermines the spirit of California’s SB 54, a sanctuary state law passed in 2018.
The Agreement and Controversy
The Glendale Police Department houses non-criminal immigration detainees in the city’s 96-bed facility, a move that is drawing criticism from local immigration advocates and legal groups. While the agreement between Glendale and ICE has been in place for nearly two decades, it has come under new fire amid growing concerns about federal immigration practices under the Trump administration and the pressure to increase arrests.
At least two ICE detainees were reported to have been held in the Glendale City Jail last week. According to the Los Angeles Times, the city earns $85 per detainee per day, generating significant revenue from this arrangement. Glendale officials defend the contract, asserting that it is legally protected and grandfathered in, citing the fact that the agreement predates SB 54 and thus, according to them, does not violate the law.
Advocacy and Legal Concerns
Immigration advocates, including representatives from the ACLU of Southern California, argue that the practice not only sidesteps the intent of California’s sanctuary laws but also contributes to the federal government’s increasing reliance on local jurisdictions for immigration enforcement.
“The continued detention of immigration detainees in Glendale’s jail is a clear workaround to the limits imposed by SB 54,” said one immigration attorney who spoke at a Glendale City Council meeting. The attorney also shared troubling details about delays in detainee transfers, with one client allegedly going hours without food or water during the process.
Legal groups argue that the use of local jails for federal immigration enforcement is a violation of the spirit of sanctuary laws, which were designed to protect vulnerable immigrant communities from undue interference by federal immigration agencies.
City’s Defense and Legal Implications
Glendale officials contend that the city is not violating SB 54 because the jail is used for temporary holding only, and local police do not process or book detainees. They also emphasize that ICE is solely responsible for detainee transfers and processing. This distinction, however, has not assuaged critics, who argue that the city’s involvement in holding federal detainees still indirectly supports federal immigration enforcement.
Moreover, despite the ongoing criticism, Glendale has not expressed any intent to sever its agreement with ICE, which remains active with the potential for termination with 60 days’ notice from either party. City records indicate that Glendale received more than $6,000 from the federal government over the past year as part of this arrangement.
Wider Implications and the Sanctuary Debate
The continued use of local jails by ICE, particularly in sanctuary states like California, raises larger questions about the balance between federal immigration priorities and local autonomy. As federal detention centers remain overcrowded and arrests continue to surge, the practice of localities housing federal detainees could set a concerning precedent, especially as calls for comprehensive immigration reform and a reconsideration of sanctuary laws intensify.
What’s Next for Glendale and SB 54?
As the debate over sanctuary laws and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement continues, Glendale’s decision to maintain its contract with ICE remains a point of contention. Will more California cities follow Glendale’s lead in keeping such contracts, or will pressure from advocates and public opinion force changes to the way localities engage with federal immigration policies?
