The federal government’s plans to build a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in unincorporated Gilroy could bring a range of social, economic, legal and community impacts to South County and the broader Central Coast region with very few positive impacts.
The proposed facility on Holsclaw Road 11 miles south of an existing ICE field office in Morgan Hill has already generated strong opposition from local officials, immigrant advocates and neighboring counties. Santa Clara and Monterey County leaders have publicly discussed litigation and formal opposition efforts.
Santa Clara County Executive James Williams said in our May 22 story that the county’s zoning ordinance does not permit detention facilities on the property and that his office intends to enforce that.
District 1 Santa Clara County Supervisor Sylvia Arenas, who represents Gilroy, Morgan Hill and South San Jose, echoed Williams’ sentiments saying “while they are trying to build in my district, the entire county will stand in opposition. We will fight any detention facility with every possible tool at our disposal …”
Gilroy Mayor Greg Bozzo, City Councilmember Zach Hilton and community organizer Rebeca Armendariz also voiced their opposition to the proposed project.
Some of the most commonly cited concerns include:
- Fear and distrust within immigrant communities
- Economic disruption to agriculture and local businesses
- Strain on infrastructure and public services
- Human rights and detention-condition concerns
- Reduced community cohesion and public participation
- Legal battles and taxpayer costs
One major concern is the psychological and social effect on Gilroy’s large immigrant and farmworker population. Community leaders say the mere presence of a detention center can create fear among undocumented and mixed-status families, discouraging people from going to work, reporting crimes, seeking healthcare or sending children to school.
Agriculture is another key issue. Gilroy and the surrounding South Valley economy depend heavily on immigrant labor. Critics argue that expanded immigration enforcement infrastructure nearby could worsen labor shortages, disrupt harvesting operations and hurt agricultural production.
Some broader studies of ICE enforcement in California agriculture have projected workforce declines and crop losses tied to intensified raids and detentions.
There are also concerns about detention conditions themselves. Recent reports from other detention facilities documented overcrowding, inadequate medical care, unsanitary conditions and detainee deaths. Opponents fear a new facility could contribute to those same systemic problems.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the years 2025 and 2026 recorded unprecedented spikes in mortality, marking the deadliest period for ICE detainees in more than two decades. During this time, the rate of deaths increased to roughly one every six days, heavily driven by suicide and systemic inadequacies in medical care.
Another criticism centers on transparency and local control. Multiple officials said they learned about the proposed project only after public records surfaced, not through direct federal coordination. That lack of communication has fueled distrust and accusations that the federal government is bypassing local planning processes.
Some residents and officials also worry about infrastructure impacts. In other communities facing proposed ICE facilities, local governments have warned that detention centers could overwhelm water, sewer, emergency response and transportation systems, especially in smaller or semi-rural areas.
Finally, there is a broader moral and political objection. Critics argue detention centers normalize mass detention and aggressive immigration enforcement, with some comparing them to incarceration systems or private prison expansion. Public reaction online and at protests has been highly emotional and polarized.
Supporters of detention centers, meanwhile, often argue they improve immigration enforcement capacity, create construction and security jobs, and help federal agencies process detainees closer to where arrests occur. But in Gilroy specifically, most public reaction from local governments and activist groups so far has been strongly opposed.
Finally, the best way to keep these facilities from being built is to protest. While federal powers generally supersede local zoning laws, the legal and public relations hurdles created by protests frequently stall these projects and cause the government to abandon specific sites. These protests combined with local community organizing, effectively deter detention centers from being built.
Recent examples of success include Hutchins, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Kansas City, Missouri and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Organizers are actively documenting these impacts through nationwide coalitions such as the Detention Watch Network at detentionwatchnetwork.org/communitiesnotcages.
Deport. Them. All.
How is this not a a win-win? Minimal travel required to visit their relatives and friends, and when the order is sealed they can all travel back to their 3-WSH together. Sayonara!
I’m embarrassed to say Gilroy and County leaders are the real problem here. Please show real leadership! If you can’t find a way to work with ICE, then resign! Just look around Gilroy. The roads are deteriorating, the City looks dirty with overgrown weeds, and trash everywhere. And you want me to think you are doing a good job by voicing objections over an ICE facility. Well I object to your lack of leadership!
Well said kevin.
Don’t be too hard on the “leaders.” It’s the illegal aliens who are voting for them! If we had honest elections, with proof of citizenship and in-person voting, things would be completely different.
ICE detention centers are a solution in search of a problem. There is no reason to detain people in concentration camps. The only beneficiaries are corporations that make millions by caging human beings in squalid conditions at OUR expense as taxpayers. Thousands of innocent and legal residents in this country are being held without charge by a regime that is driven by hate and racism and which refuses to rationally address the issue of undocumented migration. That hate and racism is reflected in comments on this page. ICE has become an embarrassment to all humane Americans. I agree with Mr Airoldi that we must do everything possible to stop this obscene project moving forward.
My dear legal Mike, if you can read and write, then you know Illegal “aliens” cant vote. However, I do have a question for you did you write this while eating your burrito, or while your lawn is being
manicured, while making your fresh salad, while eating at your favorite restaurant, while your car is
being washed, etc., I pray you are able to do all of this with your non alien workers, especially
the food you eat.
Sally Armendariz
The Gilroy Dispatch editorial gets it exactly right — an ICE detention facility does not belong in the South Valley.
This isn’t just about Gilroy. It’s about all of us. Morgan Hill, San Martin, Gilroy, we are connected by our schools, our businesses, our farms, and our families. A detention center doesn’t just occupy a piece of land, it casts a shadow over an entire region.
Our agricultural economy depends on immigrant workers. Our local businesses depend on customers feeling safe enough to shop, seek medical care, attend church, and participate in community life. A detention facility does the opposite. It creates fear, discourages people from reporting crimes or accessing services, and erodes the trust that healthy communities require.
What is perhaps most disappointing is the response from the Morgan Hill City Council. While neighboring leaders have spoken out against this proposal, Morgan Hill’s leadership has largely failed to meet the moment. Their silence or worse, their willingness to accommodate policies that divide rather than strengthen our community, reveals priorities that many residents hoped were not there.
Moments like this show us who our elected officials really are. Values aren’t demonstrated when the issue is easy or politically convenient. They’re revealed when leadership requires courage.
This isn’t about being “pro” or “anti” immigration. It’s about asking what kind of community we want to be. Do we want to be known for welcoming families, supporting agriculture, and building trust? Or do we want to become synonymous with detention, fear, and division?
South Valley deserves better and Morgan Hill deserves leaders willing to stand with its neighbors and say clearly, “this facility is wrong for our region, wrong for our economy, and wrong for our shared humanity.”