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.
