Table of Contents
Glendale, June 9: City oGlendale, June 9: In a decisive policy shift drawing both commendation and critique, the City of Glendale has formally terminated its longstanding agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to house federal immigration detainees in its Police Department detention facility. The decision, announced in an official statement released Sunday, ends a 17-year arrangement that city officials now say no longer aligns with community values or public trust.
City Ends ICE Detainee Contract Amid Public Concerns
According to the statement issued by Glendale city officials, the termination reflects growing unease among residents over the city’s indirect involvement in federal immigration operations. While city leaders maintain that the contract was executed with full transparency and conformed to all legal obligations, including California’s SB 54 sanctuary law, the optics of cooperating with ICE—even in a custodial capacity—have become increasingly polarizing.
“At this time, it is in our best interest to not allow that trust to be undermined,” the city said, referring to the credibility the Glendale Police Department (GPD) holds within the community. Despite repeated reassurances that local police were not engaged in any immigration enforcement activities, public perception of the ICE contract had “become divisive,” officials acknowledged.
A Highly Regulated but Controversial Arrangement
Since 2007, Glendale maintained a locally controlled, limited-use detention facility for federal immigration detainees. City authorities highlighted that the GPD facility offered better conditions than many ICE-affiliated centers across the country, including on-call medical care, legal counsel, family visitation rights, and clean living accommodations. Detainees held in Glendale were often those facing temporary custody ahead of legal proceedings.
In official communications, Glendale emphasized that its facility operated with high ethical standards and extended “basic dignities” to those held. “By offering local access,” the statement read, “detainees were given due-process proximity that is too often lacking in more remote or privately-operated detention centers.”
Nonetheless, the facility’s association with ICE drew mounting criticism from civil rights groups and segments of the public. Jennie Quinonez-Skinner, a Glendale resident and vocal critic of the arrangement, told the Los Angeles Times, “They can end [the contract] if they want to, they just don’t want to. I see no justification for doing it. Under the current administration, with lack of due process, it’s harmful.”
Legal Loopholes and Policy Tensions
The decision also sheds light on an often-overlooked legal wrinkle in California’s sanctuary framework. While SB 54, enacted in 2017, prohibits most cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, it allows pre-existing detention contracts—like Glendale’s 2007 agreement—to remain in force. This grandfather clause has permitted a handful of municipalities to continue custodial arrangements that, while legally permissible, clash with the spirit of California’s sanctuary policies.
Civil liberties advocates, including Andres Kwon of ACLU Southern California, have repeatedly urged cities to abandon such contracts. “This contract very much goes against the principle and value of creating a bright line between federal immigration enforcement and local jurisdictions,” Kwon noted, describing the arrangement as “deeply, deeply troublesome.”
City officials insist their decision to terminate the contract was not politically motivated but driven by local risk assessments and a desire to avoid potential unrest. Citing recent violent protests in other jurisdictions over similar arrangements, Glendale authorities opted to act preemptively to safeguard residents and businesses.
Balancing Safety and Fair Treatment
The city’s leadership has framed the contract’s end as a reaffirmation of its commitment to public safety, community cohesion, and the fair treatment of all individuals—regardless of immigration status. The decision was also presented as a way to preserve the GPD’s hard-earned reputation as a trusted, non-partisan public institution.
“We have not, and will not, participate in federal immigration operations,” one city official stated, reiterating that the Glendale Police Department’s role was purely custodial. The statement emphasized that while legal access and humane treatment were always guaranteed to detainees, “public perception—no matter how limited or carefully managed—has become a liability.”
Impact on Families and Legal Advocates
For immigration lawyers and detainee families, Glendale’s facility had become a rare safe harbor. Many detainees housed there had quicker access to legal counsel and could receive visits from family members without the long travel times associated with more remote ICE facilities, particularly those privately operated in Adelanto and Bakersfield.
Sarah Houston, an immigration attorney who testified at a recent Glendale City Council meeting, recounted one case in which her client was denied food for nearly nine hours during transfers between multiple detention sites. She warned that ending the contract could worsen conditions for those now redirected to less accountable centers. “Do you want Glendale to be one of the only cities that allows local police departments to work with DHS?” she asked.
City officials acknowledged this concern in their statement, conceding that detainees might now face “greater difficulty in access to legal counsel and family visitation,” a consequence they termed “unfortunate but necessary under current conditions.”
Looking Ahead: Facility Future Unclear
With the ICE contract formally rescinded, attention now turns to the future use of Glendale’s detention facility. The city has not yet announced whether the space will be repurposed for other municipal functions or reserved exclusively for local criminal detentions. Officials have only said that the decision was part of a broader reevaluation of city services and priorities.
The development comes amid broader scrutiny of California cities still holding on to ICE contracts under SB 54 exemptions. Legal experts suggest that Glendale’s exit could prompt similar moves in other municipalities, potentially triggering a statewide reevaluation of sanctuary policy enforcement.
Community Reactions Mixed but Watchful
Reaction among residents has been mixed. Some see the decision as a long-overdue correction aligned with Glendale’s inclusive ethos, while others fear the move could complicate detention logistics and place additional burdens on families and lawyers representing immigrant detainees.
In either case, the city’s decision marks a turning point in how local governments navigate the tension between federal enforcement and community accountability. As immigrant rights advocates continue to monitor the implementation of sanctuary laws, Glendale’s withdrawal from ICE detention operations may serve as a bellwether for future municipal policies.
New Jersey Times Is Your Source: The Latest In Politics, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Breaking News, And Other News. Please Follow Us On Facebook, Instagram, And Twitter To Receive Instantaneous Updates. Also Do Checkout Our Telegram Channel @Njtdotcom For Latest Updates.
