CIBOLA COUNTY, N.M. – House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, has moved rapidly through the 2026 New Mexico Legislature, clearing passing the full House of Representatives on a vote of 40-29, and advancing to the Senate side of the Roundhouse where it has already cleared its own only required committee. It’s next step is a vote on the New Mexico Senate Floor.
The bill is advancing as local governments in Cibola County warn of major economic consequences tied to detention contracting in Milan.
HB 9 would prohibit state and local government agencies – defined in the bill as “public bodies,” including counties, sheriff’s departments, and political subdivisions – from entering into or renewing agreements used to detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations. It would also require public bodies already party to such agreements to terminate them at the earliest date permitted under contract terms. The bill further bars public bodies from selling, trading, or leasing public property to be used for detention related to federal civil immigration violations, and authorizes the attorney general or a district attorney to seek injunctive relief to stop violations.
Supporters have argued the bill is aimed at ending New Mexico’s involvement in civil immigration detention contracting and addressing concerns about detention conditions, due process, and liability.
Opponents – particularly in rural counties with detention facilities – have warned the bill could disrupt local economies and shift detention elsewhere without ending it.
The actions of Santa Fe could negatively impact the Cibola County Correctional Center which has a contract with the government of Cibola County to house ICE detainees with the Department of Homeland Security. The potential direct impact is an estimated 180 lost jobs across the county, not counting additional spending currently done by the facility.
Cibola County Votes to Oppose HB 9
In Cibola County, the bill has triggered a swift local response.
The Cibola County Commission unanimously approved Resolution 202616 opposing legislation that would prohibit state and local governments from contracting for detention related to federal civil immigration violations.
County officials have pointed to economic modeling and local fiscal projections that estimate significant impacts if detention- related operations tied to civil immigration contracting were reduced or ended in Milan.
Economic impact studies presented to local officials described a modeled closure scenario projecting $20.4 million in total economic loss, including $16 million in direct annual payroll and $4.42 million in multiplier effects. The same modeling projected a $18.86 million reduction in economic output from 180 fulltime job losses and 44.45 induced full-time equivalent job losses beyond direct facility positions.
Separate projections focused on the Village of Milan warned that a reduction in operations could create a major budget shock for the small municipality, including estimated losses tied to property tax, gross receipts tax, and water and sewer revenue. In particular, Village Manager Candi Williams pointed out that a closure of the Cibola County Correctional Center would cause serious harm to the village’s population.
Special Meeting with Legislative Delegation
As HB 9 moved to the Senate side, local and state officials continued pressing for detailed impact documentation.
On Jan. 26, the Cibola County Commission held a special meeting with the local legislative delegation focused on HB 9 and potential local impacts.
During that meeting, Sen. George Muñoz (D – SD4) requested written totals describing “total economic impact” for Cibola County, the Village of Milan, and the City of Grants, and asked for cost information from local law enforcement. Sen. Angel Charley (D – SD30) requested additional breakdowns, including wage information, turnover rates, demographics, and data related to deaths in custody and use-of-force incidents.
Commissioners approved action, directing County Manager Kate Fletcher and county staff to gather the requested information for legislators. The turnaround for this information has been tight, with the county manager given a timeline of less than 12 hours to get all of this information to the legislators. Manager Fletcher called on Milan Manager Williams and Grants Manager Andrew Valecnia and their collective staff to assist with this effort.
New Mexico House Passes HB 9, 40-29
A major portion of House Floor debate centered on a lengthy exchange between Rep. John Block and Rep. Andrea Romero, one of the bill’s sponsors.
Block questioned supporters about conditions at detention facilities and asked whether alleged violations occurred under prior federal administrations. Romero responded that conditions and concerns about detention practices have been raised for years.
Block pressed repeatedly on who would be affected by HB 9 and how much control New Mexico would retain if the bill passes. Romero emphasized that HB 9 addresses contracts between counties and the federal government and that it applies to civil immigration detention, not criminal detention.
As Block asked whether closing local contracting would stop the federal government from continuing detention operations in New Mexico, Romero said federal authorities can still act independently, and the state bill does not control federal decisions.
Block also asked where detainees would go if local contracting is prohibited. Romero responded that outcomes could include detainees being moved, released, or deported – and said the intent of HB 9 is to prohibit New Mexico’s participation in the contracting structure for civil detention.
“Hold harmless” amendment becomes the central fight
After the sponsor questioning, the debate shifted to Block’s amendment, an effort to provide funding support for counties most impacted if detention contracts are restricted.
Block argued the state had not clearly answered how communities would be made whole if hundreds of jobs are lost in rural counties with detention facilities. He referenced discussion about workforce training money and said it would not replace permanent job loss.
Rep. Stefani Lord joined the debate warning that rural workers cannot easily commute to Albuquerque-area jobs and said job disruption could force residents to leave their home counties. She also criticized the lack of advance planning and said communities should have been engaged directly before a bill with major local consequences moved forward.
Lord and Block framed the amendment as an attempt to avoid what they described as “economic harm” while the state shifts away from detention-based local revenue and employment.
During debate, Speaker of the House Javier Martinez cautioned members about the tone and wording used on the floor as emotions rose.
Several lawmakers questioned how Block’s amendment would work in practice -specifically, who would qualify for funding, what spending would be covered, and whether counties could interpret the funding language too broadly.
Rep. Nathan Small asked whether the amendment could function like a “blank check” if counties expanded spending and later sought reimbursement.
Block maintained the amendment was aimed at employment impacts and related public costs that local governments could face after job losses.
Other lawmakers raised additional questions about what happens to families if detainees are transferred out of New Mexico, and what “creativity” counties were being told to pursue if facilities lose business.
At this point, Rep. Reena Szczepanski moved to table Amendment 1. Block requested a roll-call vote.
The House voted 37–32 to table the amendment, removing it from consideration. With the amendment tabled, HB 9 remained on track for a final vote in the form already advanced through the House committee process.
Final arguments and House passage
Following the amendment vote, supporters returned to the bill’s central rationale: that New Mexico should not structure local economies around civil immigration detention contracts and should end state and local participation in those agreements.
Rep. Angelica Rubio, a bill sponsor, argued on the House floor that detentionbased local revenue creates dependency and said the bill is intended to uphold state principles while limiting New Mexico’s role in civil immigration detention contracting. She also emphasized the bill does not control federal actions, but instead limits what New Mexico public bodies may do.
Rubio then moved for passage. The House vote was opened, and HB 9 passed 40–29.
The Cibola delegation was split. Rep. Martha Garcia covers the western portion of Cibola County voted NAY, against HB 9. Rep. Michelle P Abeyta, who covers the eastern portion of Cibola County, voted YES, for HB 9.
HB 9Advances to the Senate
The Immigrant Safety Act then moved to the New Mexico Senate and received its first hearing on this side of the legislature, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where senators debated whether the state should continue allowing local governments to participate in civil immigration detention contracting and what consequences could follow for rural counties that rely on detention-related jobs and revenue.
Before debate began amongst the legislators, Village of Milan Manager Candi Williams delivered a message: “I want to talk about my little town. Milan has a population of about 2,300, and roughly 1,300 of that figure is tied to the beds at the facility in our community. Those beds are not full. About 600 are in use, and about 200 of those are ICE detainees. If the facility loses those 200 ICE detainees, about a third of current bed use goes away. I understand what we’re hearing – that it could still operate - but nothing is guaranteed.
“If our population falls below certain thresholds, we could lose eligibility for federal grant funding, which would affect opportunities for our residents and our community. And I struggle when people ask me why it feels like the Legislature hates our little community.”
Sponsors and supporters framed HB 9 as a state policy decision rooted in the idea that cooperation with ICE through county contracting is voluntary and argued the bill does not attempt to dictate federal enforcement decisions. When asked what legal opinion the sponsors relied on, sponsors referenced the New Mexico Department of Justice during the exchange.
Sen. Crystal Brantley repeatedly pressed sponsors on the practical impact of the bill, asking whether it would send detainees to “a worse place” out of state and what oversight New Mexico would retain if local contracting ends. Brantley described working with two immigrants held at the Otero County facility and said proximity made it easier to help connect detainees with attorneys and pursue legal options. During the discussion, she said, “thank goodness they are as close as Otero County,” and argued, “New Mexico is the loser here for losing good paying jobs.”
Other opponents argued HB 9 would not stop federal detention but would remove local leverage and oversight while shifting people elsewhere.
Sen. Katy Duhigg referenced concerns about conditions at detention facilities, including discussion related to the Torrance County facility. In remarks captured in notes, Duhigg said, “these are not the kind of facilities we want anyone in.”
Senate Judiciary Chair Joseph Cervantes told the committee the issue has been under discussion for several years and said, “I don’t think this is a response to the Trump Administration.” Cervantes also spoke about changes in federal detention practices and said his view on this bill has shifted as a result.
Near the end of his speech, Cervantes said, the counties “need the jobs but not that bad.”
HB 9 received a “Do Pass” recommendation on a 5–3 vote. Next, the bill goes to a vote of the full New Mexico Senate.
The Finish Line
With House passage complete, HB 9 must now move through the Senate process.
That typically includes a Senate committee hearing and vote, potential additional Senate committee referrals depending on leadership decisions, and then a vote by the full Senate. If the Senate amends HB 9 on the floor, the measure would need House concurrence before it could be sent to the governor.
Cibola County Board of Commissioners, a mostly-Democrat led board, had unanimously passed a resolution in opposition to HB 9.
As of press time on February 3, House Bill 9 does not show as moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. HB 9 did pass this the committee and could have a full vote any day. If HB 9 passes the Senate, the final step is for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham to sign the bill.