With no warning from the Feds, Social Circle finds itself in a fight. They are against a billion-dollar enterprise. This company looks for abandoned commercial buildings to turn into migrant detention centers. This company is the Department of Homeland Security, the overseer of ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol.
ICE detention centers range widely in size. From a few hundred detainees, to the one being proposed in Social Circle at 10,000 human detainees. Often, local governments do not get adequate notification. This occurs when a parcel of their land is about to be converted into a prison-like center. As of late 2025 and early 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operates a vast network. Reports show that there are between 212 and over 400 active facilities used for detention. Apparently, this is not enough for DHS.
These detention centers are rapidly becoming an increasing part of the landscape. They are appearing in places that never thought they would be involved in the government mass deportation plan. But here we are. These deportation centers have common attributes.
Freedom for Immigrants
Figure 1 is a map developed by Freedom for Immigrants. Freedom for Immigrants is an immigrant-led, abolitionist organization committed to ending immigration incarceration. Freedom for Immigrants was co-founded by Christina Fialho and Christina Mansfield with the goal of exposing and abolishing U.S. immigration detention. In 2010, Fialho and Mansfield co-created the first detention visitation group in California at the West County Detention Facility. Fialho and Mansfeild then joined forces with four other visitation groups around the country and established the National Visitation Network. Now, on any given day, tens of thousands of immigrants lose their freedom. This occurs in the abusive and secretive immigration detention system. The origins of this system can be traced back to this legacy of racism throughout U.S. history.
Key features:
- Civil, not criminal detention (no criminal conviction required)
- People are held awaiting asylum decisions, deportation hearings, or release
- Many facilities are jails or jail-like, often run by private prison companies or local sheriffs
- Detainees can be held for months or years
- Conditions are punitive in practice: locked cells, limited movement, inadequate medical care in many documented cases
We must acknowledge that the American people do not support the deportation plan that the DHS through its ICE police. In particular, they have become anti-ICE. School age students walked out of school a week ago in large numbers. They protest how ICE police, who wear masks and carry weapons, invade communities. They round up people they believe fit their predetermined appearance. About two-thirds (64%) of Americans think that Donald Trump’s administration has wrongfully detained U.S. citizens in immigrant detention centers, including 40% who think they have done this to many people. Among citizens who are immigrants or whose parents were, 73% think the Trump administration has wrongfully detained U.S. citizens in immigrant detention centers.
What is happening Social Circle is part of the governments mass deportation plan. Their goal is to increase the number of beds nationally to nearly 110,000 to 150,000. Now they are holding about 70,000 people.
Social Circle met with representatives of DHS as reported in a newsletter on February 18, 2026. The city made it clear it did not have the infrastructure. Water and sewage treatment can’t meet the demands caused by an increase in population of 10,000 people.
Social Circle has a very strong case to oppose DHS’s plan. They plan to resist the conversion of a warehouse into a detention center. More details will follow in a future post.
Examples of Other U.S. Communities who Woke up to see ICE knocking on their doors
Here are several real examples (recent + a few instructive older ones). DHS/ICE detention plans landed with little or no meaningful local approval or notice. The town or city found out late—often via media, a congressional office, or rumors.
Georgia: Oakwood
Oakwood officials said they received no official notice from DHS/ICE. They learned only days before it became public/real. This triggered local backlash and council pressure. However, they were thrown under the bus by their House Representative, Andrew Clyde. He made it clear that he voted for the plan to expand ICE. He also stated that Oakwood would be a great place to build a detention center.
Indiana: Merrillville
Merrillville’s town council passed a resolution opposing an ICE warehouse conversion after a reported tour. The council stated it had received no notice or communication from ICE/DHS about any plan. This is a great model for Social Circle to look into.
New Hampshire: Merrimack
Reporting on a proposed ICE “adaptive reuse” warehouse conversion indicates that federal planning can move quickly. Yet, local permits/approvals stay unresolved. This situation fuels early uncertainty and local concern about what’s being proposed and how.
Arizona: Surprise
Local officials and residents protested. DHS purchased a warehouse for conversion into an ICE detention facility. It was described in coverage as a “surprise” plan that prompted immediate local pushback.
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City area proposal (ultimately “off the table”)
Oklahoma City issued a public statement. It explained that federal detention centers can be exempt from local zoning. This exemption is exactly the legal reality that leaves cities feeling bypassed in practice.
Texas: Hutchins (Dallas County)
A large warehouse has been reported as a potential ICE detention site. Local concern focuses on the idea that planning and renovations can continue with minimal transparency. This will leave the town reacting after the fact.
Florida: “Alligator Alcatraz” (Collier County / Dade-Collier airstrip)
AP reporting describes how local/county officials were effectively blindsided. They learned about the facility only once activity was underway. This happened amid claims of bypassing normal processes.
Kansas: Leavenworth (CoreCivic / ICE)
Leavenworth became a national example of a city trying to use local controls (zoning). Nonetheless, the operator argued it should be allowed to open an ICE facility without local approval. This illustrates the recurring conflict between federal detention ambitions and municipal authority.
California: Glendale (different mechanism, same local backlash dynamic)
Glendale ended an ICE detainee-holding arrangement after intense local protest and political blowback. This is an example of a city moving to withdraw cooperation when a federal detention relationship becomes locally unacceptable.
Conclusion
Social Circle is facing an unexpected challenge from the Department of Homeland Security. The department plans to convert a local warehouse into a detention center for up to 10,000 migrants. This proposal highlights the lack of local government notification. It also points out the absence of support for ICE’s expansion, which aims to increase detention facilities nationwide. Amidst rising anti-ICE sentiment, many American communities are unprepared for such developments, prompting protests and local resistance. Social Circle is determined to oppose this plan, emphasizing inadequate infrastructure to support such a significant increase in population.
You must be logged in to post a comment.