Fact check: How do states like Arizona and New Mexico enforce immigration laws for undocumented immigrants in 2025?

1. Bold Moves in State Legislatures Are Shaping Enforcement Choices

Legislative actions in state capitols directly affect how states enforce immigration policy, and Arizona’s recent House committee action to require state officials to cooperate with federal immigration orders signals a shift toward formalized state-level enforcement alignment with federal priorities ^[1]. That bill, advanced in June 2025, would lower bureaucratic friction for ICE operations and could increase state resources funneled to immigration enforcement without creating new federal authorities. Observers should note that legislative momentum does not automatically translate into uniform enforcement—implementation depends on administrative directives, judicial challenges, and local willingness to cooperate—and the June 2025 legislative record is only one piece of a broader enforcement mosaic ^[1].

2. Local ICE Activity and Community Pushback Define Everyday Realities

On the ground, ICE activity in cities like Phoenix and federal operations reported in New Mexico have provoked strong community responses, illustrating how enforcement is experienced locally rather than solely at the state policy level ^{[2] [5]}. Reports from mid-2025 document community protests and organized monitoring of ICE actions, indicating that civil society, immigrant communities, and local advocates shape the operational environment for enforcement and can influence public perception and municipal cooperation. These local dynamics complicate assumptions that state laws straightforwardly translate into uncontested enforcement; resistance can slow, publicize, or reconfigure federal efforts ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Federal Detention Capacity and Practices Are Central to Enforcement Outcomes

National-level data show a dramatic rise in ICE detentions in 2025, with monthly detainee counts breaking previous records and raising questions about conditions and capacity; reporting in late September 2025 highlights over 60,000 people detained in a month and widespread concerns about inhumane conditions ^[3]. These federal detention trends matter for states because greater ICE capacity and harsher detention practices enable more sustained interior enforcement, while also driving public scrutiny and legal challenges. The Marshall Project/Univision investigation into increased solitary use and PBS coverage of new detention facilities further indicate that detention policy is an influential lever shaping enforcement consequences ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Local Police Partnerships Multiply ICE’s Reach Across States

Enforcement in Arizona and New Mexico is amplified by agreements between ICE and local or state law enforcement agencies, with reporting indicating more than 1,000 police departments partnering with ICE to help arrest undocumented immigrants as of September 2025 ^[4]. These partnerships expand ICE’s operational footprint beyond federal agents and into routine policing, making immigration enforcement a factor in everyday law enforcement interactions. The growth of these agreements since prior administrations shows how federal-local cooperation can institutionalize checks on undocumented immigrants’ mobility and increase deportation referrals, while also drawing criticism from civil liberties advocates concerned about community trust in policing ^[4].

5. Divergent State Political Contexts Produce Different Enforcement Postures

Arizona’s legislative push contrasts with New Mexico’s mixed portrait of federal reports and community activism, underlining how partisan, legal, and administrative differences across states produce varying enforcement strategies and intensities ^{[1] [5]}. Arizona’s move to bind state officials to federal orders suggests a more enforcement-forward posture, whereas New Mexico’s local reporting and U.S. Attorney office communications reflect a focus on targeted federal actions and crime-related immigration prosecutions. These differences matter because they influence which populations are prioritized for enforcement and whether state resources are deployed proactively or left to federal discretion ^{[1] [5]}.

6. Humanitarian and Legal Concerns Are Driving Pushback and Litigation

The surge in detentions and reported use of solitary confinement has prompted humanitarian alarms and legal scrutiny, with investigative reporting in September and November 2025 documenting increased solitary confinement, poor conditions, and controversies over large detention projects ^{[6] [7]}. These findings fuel litigation, oversight demands, and public protests that can alter enforcement trajectories by constraining detention practices, delaying facility construction, or prompting statutory or policy reforms. The presence of active civil society and media coverage in both border and non-border states creates accountability pressures that shape how strictly laws are enforced and how swiftly conditions change ^{[6] [7]}.

7. The Big Picture: Enforcement Is a Layered, Dynamic System

Taken together, enforcement in 2025 is not a single mechanism but a layered system combining state laws, federal ICE operations, local police partnerships, detention capacity, and community response ^{[1] [4] [3]}. Arizona’s legislative actions, New Mexico’s local federal activity, national detention trends, and expansive police-ICE agreements collectively determine how and where undocumented immigrants face enforcement. Understanding enforcement requires tracking policy changes, federal operational metrics, local cooperation patterns, and civil society reactions over time—each element shifts the balance between deterrence, detention, and protection in the enforcement landscape ^{[1] [3] [4]}.