How do state laws treat undocumented immigrants differently from federal immigration law?

1. Federal primacy: who decides status and removal

Immigration status, visas, deportation, and criminal prohibitions tied to unlawful entry are governed by federal statutes and federal agencies—Congress enacted the INA and federal courts and the Supreme Court have repeatedly affirmed federal supremacy in immigration matters, limiting state attempts to displace federal authority ^{[1] [2]}.

2. States as gatekeepers to daily life: benefits, licenses and services

States cannot redefine who is lawfully present, but they can and do decide who receives state-funded services: states vary on driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, and access to some safety-net programs and legal services, and in 2026 several states expanded counsel and advisements for immigrant youth and criminal defendants to mitigate immigration consequences ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

3. Sanctuary policies and limits on cooperation with federal enforcement

Many jurisdictions enact “sanctuary” rules that limit local data collection on immigration status or bar honoring ICE detainers; these policies do not nullify federal law but restrict state and local participation in enforcement, and courts have both upheld some protections and struck down or curtailed certain anti‑sanctuary state measures—litigation over how far states can push back against federal enforcement is ongoing ^{[6] [3] [7]}.

4. State-enabled enforcement and the amplifying effect of local machinery

Conversely, states can amplify federal enforcement: cooperation mechanisms such as 287(g) agreements deputize local officers to perform immigration tasks, and programs that automatically notify ICE of arrested persons (Secure Communities-type systems) effectively turn state arrests into immigration enforcement triggers—recent years have seen states both increase such cooperation and create state-level deportation mechanisms now facing federal court challenges ^{[7] [3]}.

5. Procedural protections, court advisements and counsel: states shaping outcomes without changing status

States are increasingly using their procedural levers—requiring courts to give immigration advisements before plea deals, funding counsel for immigrant youth, and setting detention limits in certain settings—to influence immigrants’ realities in ways that federal law does not address directly; these measures affect how and when federal consequences attach even though they cannot alter federal status law ^{[4] [8] [7]}.

6. Legal conflict, politics and the hidden agendas behind state moves

State laws reflect divergent political agendas: some states expand protections to limit federal overreach and preserve community trust or access to services, while others pass punitive statutes aimed at deterrence or state-level removal mechanisms—both sides have strategic motives, from protecting constituents and economies to signaling tough-on‑immigration credentials, and many of these laws are shaped or checked by federal litigation and Supreme Court precedents ^{[8] [9] [3]}.

7. Practical consequences and unanswered gaps in reporting

Practically, the split means an undocumented immigrant’s core legal status and removal risk remain federal concerns, but everyday life—access to school, health services, drivers’ licenses, courtroom treatment, and local exposure to ICE—depends heavily on state and local law and policy choices; reporting documents ongoing changes (new state laws in 2026, federal rule reinterpretations affecting program eligibility), yet available sources do not provide a comprehensive inventory of every state’s statutes or the final outcomes of pending litigation ^{[4] [10] [3]}.