Overview: This comparative chart examines five key New York State immigration bills and the status quo of relevant state and federal laws and policies. Each cell contains a brief analysis; select the buttons below to open the relevant statutory or regulatory text in the panel at right, with the key passage highlighted.
✓ Pro-Immigrant
Protects immigrant rights
✗ Anti-Immigrant
Restricts immigrant rights
| Issue / Provision | Status Quo (Existing Laws and Policies) | Proposed Immigration Related Legislation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issue Area & Subquestion |
Status Quo
Existing New York State and Federal Laws and Policies As of January 2025
|
Access to Representation Act
S.141 (Sen. Hoylman-Sigal) / A.270 (AM Cruz)
|
|||
| Restricts Detention | |||||
| A. Does it prohibit NYS state & local facilities from contracting with ICE? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| State/County Detention Contracts with ICE | No, permitted. Multiple county jails (Orange, Rensselaer, etc.) hold ICE detainees under Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs). Private detention banned since 2007, but government facilities may contract with ICE. | Yes, prohibits state and local resources being used for civil immigration detention. Bars using state/local facilities for civil immigration enforcement, effectively preventing IGSA-type contracts. | Yes, direct prohibition on all new and existing immigration detention contracts with any governmental entity. Requires termination of existing IGSAs within 90 days. Most comprehensive of the four bills on this issue. | N/A — not addressed. | Yes, prohibits ICE from using local jails for civil immigration detention. Narrower than Dignity Not Detention — focuses on prospective use rather than terminating existing contracts. |
| B. Does it prohibit private entities from detaining people for civil immigration violations? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| Private Civil Immigration Detention | No, NY Correction Law bans private prisons (since 2007) for criminal custody, but the prohibition does not clearly extend to civil immigration detention by private contractors operating under federal authority. | Yes, bars state and local resources from supporting any civil immigration detention, including by private actors operating within or through state/local facilities. | Yes, explicitly prohibits private entities from detaining individuals for civil immigration violations. Extends the 2007 private prison ban to cover all civil immigration detention contexts. | N/A — not addressed. | No, does not address private civil immigration detention. |
| C. Does it ban Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) with ICE? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| IGSA Agreements with ICE | No, permitted and in active use. Orange County, Rensselaer County, and others hold federal detainees under IGSAs, generating revenue for local governments and enabling federal civil immigration detention in NY. | Yes, effectively bans IGSAs by prohibiting state and local facilities from being used for civil immigration detention — the purpose for which IGSAs are contracted. | Yes, explicitly bans all IGSAs and requires existing agreements to be terminated within 90 days of enactment. The most direct and comprehensive prohibition of any bill. | N/A — not addressed. | Yes, bars prospective use of local jails for ICE civil detention, which would preclude new IGSAs, though does not explicitly require termination of existing agreements. |
| D. Does it limit use of state & local law enforcement resources to facilitate federal immigration enforcement? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| D.1 Does it prohibit correction officers from interrogating people in custody about immigration status? | No, no statewide prohibition. Correction officers in facilities with 287(g) agreements or informal ICE cooperation may participate in or facilitate immigration-related questioning of people in their custody. | Yes, requires written notice of rights before any interview and prohibits unwarned interrogations. Bars correction officers from assisting ICE in conducting immigration interviews in state/local facilities. | N/A — not addressed. | N/A — not addressed. | No, does not specifically address correction officer interrogations. |
| D.2 Does it prohibit state & local agencies from issuing or honoring civil immigration detainers? | No, mixed. Some counties (e.g., Nassau) have 287(g) agreements and honor civil ICE detainers. NYC and others have local policies limiting compliance. No statewide standard. | Yes, prohibits all state and local agencies from honoring civil immigration detainers without a judicial warrant. Creates a uniform statewide standard, superseding Nassau and other county 287(g) arrangements. | N/A — not addressed. | N/A — not addressed. | Yes, eliminates all existing 287(g) agreements. Bars local police from civil immigration enforcement including detainer issuance. Permits ongoing cooperation for criminal (not civil) enforcement only. |
| D.3 Does it restrict informal cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE? | No, informal cooperation is widespread and largely unregulated. Local officers may informally notify ICE of individuals in custody, share information, or facilitate arrests without formal 287(g) agreements or written policies. | Yes, broadly bars state and local agencies from assisting or cooperating with civil immigration enforcement, including informal arrangements. Covers notification, transport, and intelligence sharing. | N/A — not addressed. | N/A — not addressed. | Yes, restricts informal cooperation for civil immigration purposes. Permits coordination for criminal enforcement. Narrower than NY4A — does not prohibit all informal contact with ICE. |
| D.4 Does it prohibit the Task Force Model of 287(g), which deputizes local officers as immigration enforcement agents? | No, active in NY. Nassau County and others participate in 287(g) Task Force agreements, under which local officers are trained and deputized by ICE to perform immigration enforcement functions in the community. | Yes, prohibits participation in 287(g) agreements of any type, including the Task Force model. Local officers may not be deputized for immigration enforcement. Terminates existing agreements statewide. | N/A — not addressed. | N/A — not addressed. | Yes, eliminates all 287(g) agreements, explicitly including the Task Force model. Local officers are prohibited from exercising civil immigration enforcement authority. Existing Nassau County agreement would be void. |
| E. Does it limit state & local entities' collection and sharing of personal data with federal immigration authorities? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| Immigration Status Data Collection & Sharing with ICE | No, no statewide prohibition on sharing immigration status data with ICE. Green Light Law (2019) prohibits DMV from disclosing records to federal agencies, but no broader restriction exists. | Yes, broad prohibition on collecting or disclosing immigration status information to ICE/CBP without a judicial warrant. Covers all state and local agencies. Significantly expands the Green Light Law's approach statewide. | N/A — not addressed. | N/A — not addressed. | Yes, restricts sharing information from local databases with ICE for civil immigration purposes. Supplements the Green Light Law; does not create as comprehensive a prohibition as NY4A. |
| F. Does it provide a private right of action for individuals? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| Private Right of Action for Violations | No, no private right of action for immigration-related civil rights violations under state law. Individuals must rely on AG enforcement or federal civil rights statutes with limited applicability. | Yes, provides a private right of action for affected individuals. Injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorney's fees available. Strong enforcement mechanism compared to other pending bills. | Yes, includes private right of action for individuals harmed by unlawful detention contracts or IGSA violations. Civil penalties available against non-compliant government entities. | N/A — not addressed. | No, does not create a private right of action. |
| G. Does it provide a civil rights enforcement action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| § 1983 Civil Rights Claims for Immigration-Related Violations | No, § 1983 is available for constitutional violations by state actors but courts have limited its use in civil immigration contexts. No state statute creates an equivalent cause of action under state law. | Yes, creates a state-law civil rights enforcement mechanism analogous to § 1983, allowing individuals to sue state and local actors for violations. Lowers barriers compared to federal § 1983 litigation. | Yes, enforcement provisions support civil rights actions for individuals harmed by prohibited detention. Complements federal § 1983 remedies available for constitutional violations. | N/A — not addressed. | No, does not create a § 1983-type enforcement mechanism. |
| H. Does it allow the NYS Attorney General to obtain appropriate relief? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| NYS Attorney General Enforcement Authority | No, AG may enforce existing civil rights laws on a case-by-case basis under Exec. Law § 63(12), but has no dedicated statutory authority to enforce immigration cooperation restrictions or seek relief for violations. | Yes, expressly grants the AG authority to bring civil enforcement actions, seek injunctive relief, and impose civil penalties for violations. AG may act proactively without a private complainant. | Yes, AG is empowered to enforce the detention contract ban and seek civil penalties against non-compliant entities. Government entities that miss the 90-day termination window face AG-initiated sanctions. | Yes, AG may seek mandamus or injunctive relief to compel state appropriations for the right-to-counsel program. Enforcement role narrower than NY4A or DND — focused on funding compliance. | No, does not expressly grant the AG new enforcement authority. |
| I. Does it extend indefinitely, without a sunset clause? | Current law | New York for All | Dignity Not Detention | Access to Representation | Local Cops, Local Crimes |
| Sunset / Expiration Provisions | No, existing state policies and budget allocations are subject to annual appropriation with no permanent statutory basis. No sunset date, but also no guaranteed continuation. | Yes, no sunset clause. Protections are permanent statutory law unless subsequently repealed by the Legislature. Provides long-term certainty for immigrants and localities. | Yes, no sunset clause. The detention contract ban and IGSA prohibition are permanent statutory obligations upon enactment. | Yes, no sunset clause. Converts the right to counsel into a permanent statutory entitlement, unlike discretionary budget allocations which can be eliminated year to year. | No, as a gubernatorial proposal, it has not yet been enacted into permanent law. |
← Click a § REF chip in the table to view the relevant statutory text here, with the key passage highlighted.