Are there actually any states where there is ICE activity that are happy to have them there
Executive summary
Yes — some states and local governments actively facilitate or accommodate ICE activity, while others resist; the landscape is mixed and driven by local politics, state law, and federal pressure rather than a simple pro‑ or anti‑ICE map [1] [2]. Public opinion overall is unfavorable toward ICE even as federal policy and administrative moves have expanded enforcement into new states and facilities [3] [4].
1. The federal engine pushing ICE into new places
ICE is a federal agency whose stated mission is nationwide enforcement of immigration and cross‑border crime statutes, and its operational posture under the current administration has involved expanding detention capacity and increasing arrests — actions that send agents and detainees into states that previously saw less activity [1] [4]. Human Rights Watch documents new detention facilities opened at military sites and in states including Florida, and reports that ICE detained far more people in 2025 than in 2024, signaling deliberate expansion beyond border states [4]. ICE’s public statistics and enforcement remit back up this national reach [5].
2. States that have effectively ‘welcomed’ ICE — explicit and implicit cooperation
Some states and local jurisdictions either explicitly cooperate with ICE or have policies that make cooperation likely; for example, ICE relies heavily on detention facilities in Texas and uses other states’ jails to house large numbers of detainees, which functions as a form of de facto hosting [6]. Reporting from advocacy and policy outlets shows states like New Jersey occupying a middle ground — not full sanctuary but also not wholesale deputization — and that local policy shifts can produce surges in ICE arrests by using jails as enforcement sites [2]. In practice these arrangements mean ICE activity is not only tolerated but enabled in places where state/local institutions supply beds, data or police cooperation [2] [6].
3. Legal fights and visible local resistance — places pushing ICE out
Countervailing pressure comes from states and cities attempting to limit ICE’s footprint: some state officials and courts have tried to block surges of ICE activity, and at least one federal judge denied a bid to block an ICE surge in Minnesota while acknowledging potential harms, highlighting contested legal terrain rather than uniform acceptance [7]. Other jurisdictions have adopted tip lines, oversight measures, or laws aimed at restricting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — Maine’s tip line to report ICE activity and abuses is an example of organized state-level resistance [8].
4. Public sentiment and political incentives shaping local choices
Nationwide polling shows ICE is among the least‑favored federal agencies, with a negative net rating, and strong public support across parties for transparency measures like agent identification and body cameras during enforcement actions — pressures that make overt local welcoming politically risky for many officials [3]. At the same time, political alignment with federal enforcement priorities and incentives (funding, law enforcement cooperation, or administrative pressure) can make some state leaders more receptive to hosting ICE activities despite public skepticism [1] [3].
5. Humanitarian and oversight consequences that feed local decisions
Reports of abusive conditions, overcrowding, and deaths in ICE custody in 2025–2026 have sharpened scrutiny and pushed some localities toward resistance, while other jurisdictions have accepted or even expanded housing for detainees under federal contracts, often citing public‑safety or financial rationales [4] [9]. Advocacy groups and data trackers document where enforcement is happening in real time, and those patterns often reflect where facilities, contracts, and local cooperation make ICE operations feasible [10] [6].
6. The bottom line: a patchwork, not a consensus
There are indeed states and localities where ICE activity is accommodated, facilitated, or effectively welcomed — whether through detention contracts, police cooperation, or a lack of local legal constraints — but there are also robust pockets of legal resistance, public opposition, and policy tools designed to curtail ICE’s reach [2] [7] [8]. The “happiness” of a state to have ICE is rarely a single official posture; it is the result of competing incentives — federal policy, local politics, funding and contracts, public opinion, and human‑rights scrutiny — producing a complex, contested map of enforcement [1] [3] [4].