Desert city grapples with chaos as secret ICE facility takes in hundreds of migrants

A small desert city in California is grappling with chaos after a secretive ICE detention facility began taking in hundreds of migrants, drawing protests and questions about whether the center has the necessary local permits. City officials say the facility, run by CoreCivic, started accepting detainees at the end of August, with a stated capacity of up to 2,560 people but about 502 migrants reported on site in early September. The move has sparked accusations that the operation was conducted with little to no public notification or local oversight, prompting residents and council members to demand answers amid a wave of anti-ICE sentiment.

The controversy intensified as residents, activists and city leaders lamented what they described as a clandestine rollout, with critics arguing the center previously housed state inmates and was suddenly repurposed as a detention facility without the standard permitting process. Detainees at the site have staged sit-ins and hunger strikes, and officials say officers in riot gear barged into some cells, placing at least four inmates into solitary confinement. City leaders, including Mayor Marquette Hawkins, say there was no warning that the facility would begin taking in detainees, and they have pressed for clarity on whether the operation complies with state laws governing permits. CoreCivic, the operator, has faced renewed scrutiny as the city reviews the center’s status and awaits guidance from state authorities.

City Council meetings have ballooned into lengthy sessions packed with residents opposing the facility, with some arguing the center violates local ordinances and state rules. Mayor Hawkins recalled the rollout as occurring “in the cover of darkness,” underscoring the tension between residents seeking accountability and a facility whose presence has become a flashpoint in local politics. The city has said there was no advance notice that detainees would be moved in and is continuing to scrutinize permitting documents while awaiting guidance from state authorities on compliance.

Advocacy groups have stepped in to amplify concerns, with Rosa Lopez, an organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union, telling the Chronicle that council members were kept “in the dark” about the operation and that CoreCivic appears to be profiting by disregarding the rules that apply to other businesses in the city. “It’s deeply concerning and appalling that CoreCivic is actively operating … profiting by disregarding the rules that every other business in the city is required to follow,” Lopez said. The center’s presence has also drawn scrutiny from residents who describe fear and confusion among families, particularly within the city’s Hispanic community, which accounts for about 40 percent of the population.

City Council Member Michael Hurles said he had pressed state authorities for help, notifying Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office twice and contacting the state attorney general for guidance on how to navigate what he called a “mess.” The attorney general’s office responded via spokesperson Nina Sheridan, saying they remain committed to ensuring the Trump Administration and its contractors comply with all applicable laws. Hurles warned that the city’s small budget could be imperiled by legal action or ongoing controversy, noting that the city faces a $31 million budget and that a lawsuit could threaten its financial stability. “Our little city ordinances can only do so much,” Hawkins said. “When two elephants fight, it’s the grass between them that suffers. California City is the grass.” Juán Carlos Cervera, a local resident, summarized the mood among many neighbors: “Everybody talks about it. Everybody is afraid.”

The release of migrant counts and the unspecified timing of the port of entry have heightened political friction in the town. California has seen migrant detention numbers rise significantly in recent months, with the Chronicle reporting a near tripling of detainees statewide from the previous year. Officials say the increase has strained local resources and spotlighted the tension between state and federal authorities over enforcement, guidelines and sharing of information.

As the city continues to examine the center’s permits and await input from the attorney general’s office, residents remain divided. Some residents advocate a hard line against the facility, arguing it bypasses local processes and threatens public safety, while others urge caution and insist on a clear legal path to resolve the permitting issues. The unfolding situation demonstrates the broader national debate over immigration policy and how local governments respond when federal detention operations operate with limited transparency. The city plans to continue consultations with state authorities and assess potential next steps, including the possibility of litigation or new ordinances to govern the facility’s presence and activities within municipal boundaries.