How New Mexico Ended Local ICE Contracting and Why Cibola, Milan and Grants Are Now Fighting for Mitigation Money
CIBOLA COUNTY, N.M. – In just a few weeks, House Bill 9 – the Immigrant Safety Act – went from a contentious proposal to state law, triggering a rapid chain reaction across Cibola County and other rural communities tied to private detention operations.
Supporters argued New Mexico had a moral and public-safety obligation to stop public bodies from participating in civil immigration detention contracting. Opponents – particularly local governments in Cibola, Torrance and Otero counties – warned the bill would destabilize local budgets, erase good-paying jobs, and weaken rural communities already battling poverty, housing strain and boom-and-bust economic cycles.
Now, as the Legislature races toward the end of session, the fight has shifted from whether HB 9 should pass to whether the state will provide enough funding to keep local governments afloat if detention-related contracts disappear. That second fight is playing out through Senate Bill 273, a “hold harmless” package being debated in Senate Finance Committee, aimed at cushioning the financial shock for affected communities.
This is how New Mexico got here, what HB 9 does, what local leaders say is at stake in Cibola County, and why mitigation funding has become the new battleground.
What HB 9 Does and Does not Do
HB 9 restricts what state and local government entities can do in connection with federal civil immigration detention.
In practice, the law prohibits public bodies – including counties and other political subdivisions – from entering into or renewing agreements used to detain people for federal civil immigration violations. It also requires public bodies already in such agreements to terminate them at the earliest date allowed under contract terms – this directly affects Cibola County, Department of Homeland Security, and the Cibola County Correctional Center. The bill further restricts public bodies from selling, trading, or leasing property for detention tied to federal civil immigration violations, and it provides for enforcement through court action seeking injunctive relief.
Supporters repeatedly emphasized a key distinction: HB 9 targets civil immigration detention contracting, not criminal detention. They argued it does not interfere with criminal prosecutions, criminal investigations, or the ability of law enforcement to pursue criminal offenders.
Opponents countered with a different practical concern: even if the law is written to target civil contracting, the real-world consequences could still be dramatic – particularly for communities where detention-related revenue is woven into municipal and county budgets.
Why HB 9 hit Cibola County like a thunderclap
The center of gravity in Cibola County’s concern is the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, operated by Core-Civic, and the local ecosystem around it — jobs, tax receipts, water and sewer revenue, and the indirect spending that keeps nearby businesses and households afloat.
Local officials have argued that ICE-related detention activity is the highest-paying component of detention contracting tied to the facility, and that changes to that revenue stream could tip the operation from viable to unstable.
They also warned the consequences would not stop at the fence line of the facility.
Cibola County Manager Kate Fletcher and Village of Milan Manager Candi Williams described ripple effects: lost payroll, reduced gross receipts tax activity, shrinking municipal revenue, and added public-service strain if people lose stable employment and are forced to relocate.
That concern became even more urgent because Cibola’s economic history has conditioned the region to fear sudden policy swings.
Multiple officials framed HB 9 not as a single isolated change, but as one more chapter in a long boom-and-bust story: uranium, energy, shifting industry, and now detention — each time leaving communities to absorb the fallout when the “plan” ends.
“I Don’t Know what to Tell Residents Who Ask, ‘Why does the Legislature Hate our Little Community?’”
As HB 9 advanced, local governments moved quickly.
In Cibola County, commissioners voted unanimously to oppose the bill, warning of major economic impact and seeking answers about how – or whether – the state intended to replace lost revenue.
During public comment at the Roundhouse, Milan Manager Williams delivered one of the most direct warnings about what HB 9 could mean at street level, telling lawmakers Milan’s official population is about 2,300, and that the facility’s beds heavily influence the population picture and, by extension, the community’s ability to qualify for certain opportunities like federal grant funding.
She warned that if ICE detainees disappear, the resulting reduction in facility use could undermine the town’s stability and potentially complicated grant eligibility and long-term planning. She also voiced the frustration rural communities feel when state policy decisions land hardest on the places with the least room to absorb shocks.
Local officials in multiple counties made the same argument: HB 9 will not stop federal immigration detention, but it could still remove economic lifelines in rural communities.
Asserting to the legislature that HB 9 may cost around 200 jobs and hit the county economically, Village Manager Williams gave a speech: “Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Candi Williams, and I’m the Village Manager for Milan. I’m not against immigration reform – it needs to be reformed, and it is a problem – but I do not believe this bill addresses that. This bill does not stop immigration enforcement in New Mexico. The federal government can still do it.
“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.
“We’ve been through boom-and-bust cycles before. In the past, agriculture changed. Then uranium mining rose and fell. Then refineries, power plants, and coal – and you all know where that ended up. In 1993, the facility was built as a county facility supported by the state to house state detainees. In 2016, it was sold to CoreCivic. Whatever people think about it, that facility has become part of how our community survives – and I have to be able to explain to our residents what happens next.”
She closed, frustrated, saying “I Don’t Know what to Tell Residents Who Ask, ‘Why does the Legislature Hate our Little Community?’” House Floor Passes HB 9
The debate reached a major flashpoint on Jan. 30, when HB 9 hit the House floor.
A significant portion of floor debate centered on sponsor questioning and on whether the bill would meaningfully protect detainees or simply relocate detention beyond New Mexico’s view. Rep. Andrea Romero, a sponsor, argued the state should end participation 9 in civil detention contracting and emphasized that the bill does not govern the federal government — it governs what public bodies in New Mexico may do.
Opponents pushed a different theme: even if New Mexico can’t control ICE, the state can still decide whether to preserve local oversight and local jobs. Rep. John Block and others pressed repeatedly on where detainees would go and what happens to families when people are transferred far away. The recurring tension was this: is the state improving conditions, or just moving the problem out of sight?
That debate set the stage for the day’s central fight: a “hold harmless” amendment aimed at making sure affected counties were not left to absorb the economic damage alone.
Rep. Stefani Lord warned that the consequences could force residents to leave rural communities because there are not comparable jobs nearby. The debate turned heated at times, with lawmakers clashing over whether the state was effectively telling rural counties to “figure it out” without a real plan.
The amendment ultimately failed when the House voted to table it 37–32. With that, HB 9 moved forward without a built-in economic backstop.
Cibola County is represented in the House by two members: Martha Garcia (D – HD6, western half of Cibola County) who voted NO and, Michelle Abeyta (D – HD69, eastern half of Cibola) who voted YES.
The House passed HB 40–29.
“Counties Need the Jobs, But Not That Bad”
HB 9 moved quickly into the Senate, where it cleared Senate Judiciary with a do-pass recommendation, and debate sharpened around two competing claims:
Supporters argued New Mexico should not be entangled in civil immigration detention contracting, pointing to oversight failures, deaths, and long-standing civilrights concerns in certain facilities.
Opponents argued the bill would not end detention – it would simply move detainees elsewhere while harming New Mexico workers and local budgets.
Senate Judiciary Chair Joseph Cervantes emerged as one of the most consequential voices. In committee remarks Cervantes acknowledged the job dependency argument but framed it bluntly: the counties “need the jobs but not that bad.”
He also described frustration about access and oversight, saying he had been unable to access private facilities despite his role, while Republicans had easier access, and said “times have changed” and his perspective had changed.
That framing – that the state should not financially rely on civil immigration detention – became the backbone of the bill’s final push.
Morality, Economics, and Multiple Failed Amendments
The most dramatic stage came on Feb. 3, during Senate floor debate.
The bill passed the Senate 24–15, but not before a series of amendments and a long moral-and-economic argument played out in real time.
Sen. George Muñoz, who represents the eastern part of Cibola County and Village of Milan and chairs Senate Finance Committee, pressed for mitigation and repeatedly warned that retraining is not easy, that families will be destabilized, and that economic impacts were being underestimated.
He framed the job risk as bigger than expected “only the tip of the iceberg.”
Sen. Angel Charley, also representing Cibola County’s western half in the senate, described Cibola as underfunded and overburdened, with a legacy of uranium fallout and development gaps.
She argued that if the state is going to do this, it cannot punish the workers and towns living with the consequences - “Cibola County has already given more than its share.”
Sen. Sharer warned the state had made transition promises before, pointing to the Energy Transition Act experience in San Juan County, and argued retraining money does not automatically translate into stable replacement jobs. He called the bill “virtue signaling” and argued that if the state destroys another community, it owes that community real support.
Meanwhile, supporters focused on conditions and “complicity.” Sen. Katy Duhigg recounted stories involving detention facilities, including the death of Roxsanna Hernandez at Cibola in 2020, arguing HB 9 would end New Mexico’s complicity in a system associated with serious harm.
As debate moved toward conclusion, the tone became overtly moral and religious. Sen. Nava invoked scripture and emotion, while Sen. Woods referenced warnings about lawlessness.
Cervantes closed with a message about fear, dignity, and values, invoking scripture as well before requesting a roll-call vote.
Multiple amendments failed – including proposals intended to provide stronger county protections or delay implementation to give more time for adjustment. Opponents argued the state was choosing symbolism over livelihoods. Supporters argued New Mexico should not base its economy on detention “cages” and that continuing those contracts was not morally defensible.
Cibola Senator George Munoz voted NO.
Cibola Senator Angel Charley voted YES.
HB 9 passed.
Signed into Law – Mitigation Fight Begins Immediately
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed HB 9 into law on Feb. 5, Chapter 5.
At the same time, the conversation at home shifted to how Cibola County and her smaller governments address potential fallout from HB 9.
Local officials continued warning that the economic impact could be severe if ICE contracting changes lead to reduced facility activity or closure. They emphasized that other detention contracts may exist, but ICE-related detention has been described as the highestpaying piece – meaning its loss could be destabilizing even if the facility does not fully close.
And that’s where SB 273 enters the story.
SB 273 – Legislature’s “Hold Harmless” Response
The mitigation proposal under discussion, Senate Bill 273, is designed to provide appropriations across FY27 and FY28 to “hold harmless” specific communities for estimated potential losses tied to HB 9.
Numbers in the bill include:
$750,000 for Cibola County for estimated potential loss of county local option GRT
$3.2 million for Cibola County for transporting prisoners to a public correctional facility outside Cibola County $850,000 for Milan for estimated potential loss of property tax revenue and water/sewer revenue
$1.4 million for Milan for estimated potential loss of municipal local option GRT
$1.7 million for Grants for estimated potential loss of municipal local option GRT Plus $600,000 for Estancia and $2 million for Otero County in the same package But SB 273 is not a blank check.
The draft includes rules and triggers. Communities must prove the impact and notify the state’s Department of Finance Administration’s Local Government Division with documentation tied to facility shutdown/impact. There is also a clawback provision: if a municipality or county receives mitigation while also receiving the same revenue it is being held harmless for, the state can require reimbursement.
Senate Finance ultimately issued a unanimous do-pass (10–0) after debate about the bill’s mechanics and broader questions about where the money comes from (Muñoz indicated reserves were involved).
Some senators argued SB 273 wouldn’t even be necessary if HB 9 had not been passed in the first place. Others argued it was the state’s responsibility to prevent rural collapse after adopting a statewide policy shift.
End of Session is Thursday
Even with SB 273 moving, the Legislature is approaching the hard stop: Thursday at noon.
The stakes are immediate for public confidence: if lawmakers passed HB 9 quickly, communities want to know whether the state will move just as quickly to prevent fiscal shock.
State agencies have described plans for rapid response and economic transition strategies, but lawmakers themselves have pressed hard on whether retraining and economic development “plans” translate into real replacement jobs. Manger Fletcher called the Department of Workforce’s plan to come into Cibola and teach displaced workers how to write resume “insulting” at last week’s Coffee with the Managers meeting.
In the meantime, local leaders and residents are left with the reality that HB 9 is no longer a hypothetical.
The Cibola Citizen will continue tracking the mitigation funding as it moves forward, as of press deadline on February 17 the bill had not yet been heard in the Senate. The Cibola Citizen did ask Manager Fletcher if there are updates to the Cibola County Correctional Center but did not hear back in time.