Experts warned at a meeting organized by American Community Media (ACoM) that, despite state laws designed to limit collaboration with immigration authorities, information-sharing between local police departments and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues through opaque and often informal channels.
Cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and ICE remains difficult to track, even in states that have enacted legislation to restrict it. Emails, shared databases, and informal notifications are among the mechanisms through which this relationship continues to function, according to experts in journalism, law, and immigration policy who took part in a virtual meeting organized by ACoM.
The meeting brought together journalists, attorneys, and researchers with extensive experience in public records and immigration policy. Participants included David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition; Thadeus Greenson, a journalist specializing in court reporting and public policy; Elizabeth Clemons, director of training and development at MuckRock; and Austin Kocher, an academic researcher who studies deportation systems and cooperation between law enforcement agencies and immigration authorities in the United States.
The discussion underscored the challenges journalists, civil society organizations, and members of the public face when seeking access to information that would clarify how and when this cooperation takes place. Although laws guarantee the public’s right to know, agencies frequently rely on delays, denials, or broad interpretations of legal exemptions to restrict access to records.
Loy argued that the lack of transparency in this area is deliberate. “Immigration-related decisions affect fundamental rights, and that is why many agencies are particularly reluctant to release information,” he said.
According to him, public records have been essential in showing that, in practice, cooperation with ICE does not always align with state law.
In California, for instance, documents obtained through public records requests have exposed data exchanges and communications that occur before individuals are released from custody. “These practices rarely appear in official statements. They only come to light when someone persistently requests the relevant documents,” he said.
Institutional Opacity and the Role of Journalism
From a journalistic standpoint, Thadeus Greenson noted that many of these investigations begin at the local level.
“There are usually no public announcements about collaboration with ICE. What exists instead are administrative traces: emails, contracts, internal memos,” he explained.
For Greenson, the main challenge is not only gaining access to the records, but sustaining the reporting process in the face of institutional resistance. “The strategy of many agencies is to wear you down. They’re betting that the journalist will eventually give up,” he said.
In that context, he stressed the importance of understanding public records laws and pursuing legal remedies when responses are delayed or incomplete.
Digital tools have also strengthened this type of investigative work. Clemons explained that specialized platforms help organize requests and detect patterns of opacity.
“Even a denial is information. A lack of transparency also tells you how an institution operates,” she said.
Data, Lawsuits, and Accountability
From an academic perspective, Kocher explained that cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement does not rely solely on formal agreements.
“It often happens through everyday practices, administrative decisions, or shared databases,” he said.
This fragmentation, he warned, makes it harder to identify accountability and evaluate the true impact of immigration enforcement policies.
Kocher emphasized that actions taken inside a local jail or police station can have direct consequences for the national deportation system. “Without access to data, public debate remains abstract,” he said.
Another issue discussed was the role of lawsuits as a last resort for obtaining information. Loy explained that when public records requests fail, the courts become a critical venue for defending the public’s right to know.
“It’s not the fastest path, but in many cases, it’s the only one,” he said.
According to him, several court rulings have forced law enforcement agencies to release documents detailing their interactions with immigration authorities, setting precedents that make future investigations easier.
“Every legal victory expands access to information for everyone,” he added.
The meeting concluded with a shared warning: investigating cooperation between ICE and local police requires time, persistence, and resources, particularly as newsrooms face mounting constraints. Still, panelists agreed that this work is essential for understanding how power is exercised and how these practices directly affect migrant communities.
As long as immigration policies continue to shape the lives of millions, access to public information will remain a vital tool for demanding transparency and accountability.