On ICE Expansion in Kentucky
In the wake of the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts, five Kentucky counties had signed on to the “287(g)” program by July 1st, agreeing to work with ICE to locate and apprehend undocumented immigrants (1). Through this program, counties receive funding to house federal detainees and are able to serve warrants on “suspected” undocumented immigrants. In exchange, local law enforcement agrees to detain said immigrants indefinitely. Previously, only a 72-hour hold for those arrested by ICE was permitted. Local advocacy groups have voiced concerns regarding the obvious avenue presented for local enforcement agencies to profit from housing federal inmates ($73 per day per federal inmate at the time of writing) (2), as well as the fear felt by those in affected communities at the prospect of increased ICE presence and connection to local law enforcement. One resident of Oldham County and member of Kentucky Citizens for Democracy stated:
“We don’t want this type of relationship with ICE. Right now, on the ICE website, we are listed as an ICE detention center. I don’t take pride in that” (2).
Other residents have echoed similar concerns. On the Oldham County inmate rosters, there is a distinction of “Federal Prisoner” for a large percentage of those held in the jail, potentially being held for federal immigration reasons. The Department of Homeland Security reports that in the first 50 days of Trump’s administration, there had been nearly 33,000 arrests by ICE nationwide. Analyzing the developments from a national standpoint can help us assemble a picture of the class forces driving this trajectory.
At present, the economies of Texas and California contrast sharply. California uses migrant labor to undercut its relatively higher rate of union membership and wages, maintaining a cheap workforce to exploit in its labor-intensive agricultural industry and expanding service sector. Meanwhile, Texas, while also commanding a large migrant worker population, already has characteristically low union density and wages, and is betting on accommodating and increasing internal migration by focusing on its tech industry (3). The relatively more accommodating California and the outwardly xenophobic Texas are acting on the interests of the bourgeoisie in their respective states. Let’s apply this view to Kentucky’s conditions:
[A] 5.9% of the labor force in Kentucky are immigrants, mostly concentrated in Louisville (4).
[B] They are overrepresented in services, particularly food services and construction, and mostly occupy lower-income positions.
[C] There’s a clear divide between the more rural economies surrounding the Louisville Metro, which command noticeably smaller incomes, and Louisville’s massive service economy relative to these surrounding counties and the Kentucky economy broadly.
All of this leads to a race to the bottom for all workers involved, fomenting hatred among rural workers against migrant workers, securing kickbacks for local law enforcement agencies, and keeping wages low. It also enforces further economic subservience for the migrant population in Jefferson County. However, this does not make Louisville a safe place for migrant workers, given the fomented hatred by more reactionary elements locally, the evolving economic interests of the bourgeoisie, and a federal administration bent on targeting immigrants—especially from Central and South America. This casts doubt on ICE’s previous claims that their primary objective is to target criminals, rather than maintaining a vulnerable migrant worker population.
The most recent development sees Louisville exiting the “sanctuary cities” list. This is the product of a campaign by the Trump administration to threaten withholding federal funding in order to force cooperation with the broader crackdown on migrant workers (5). Analyzing Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg’s words carefully allows us to expose the continued pattern of those sections of the bourgeoisie that seek to target migrant workers, and those who pose as pro-migrant only for economic benefit, only to change their tune at the slightest pressure:
“This change in designation is critical. Cities on the sanctuary city list right now are experiencing a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids. Just look at what’s gone on in LA and other cities across the country,”
“From the data I’ve reviewed, we’re talking about under 100 inmates at our jail each year who are charged with crimes and affected by detainers. We have tens of thousands of immigrant families in Louisville. We do not want to see highly coordinated and often violent federal enforcement action here, especially in workplaces, residential areas, schools, places of worship, parks, and other areas where law-abiding people gather. We do not want the National Guard occupying the streets of Louisville. I will not risk the safety of our broader immigrant community.” (5)
In short, Mr. Greenberg implies that by implementing 48-hour immigration holds and aligning Louisville’s policies with the federal crackdown on migrant workers, he is protecting people from the mass raids led by the very same forces pushing for the policy shift in the first place. He downplays the number of workers this policy would affect, assuming no further escalation—an absurd assumption—and shows a willingness to sacrifice these workers for grant money that funds programs for other struggling workers. This is not to say, however, that the current state of affairs was acceptable or that more liberal reforms would have truly represented the interests of workers:
“In the same vein, in 2018 the Mexican government signed the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which seeks that States ‘respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of all migrants regardless of their migratory status.’ It also endorses the principles of non-refoulement [non-suppression] and non-discrimination, and seeks to eradicate all forms of discrimination, such as racism and xenophobia. However, this official discourse embodied in the inter-imperialist agreements mentioned above contrasts with reality. Mexican immigration authorities do detain migrants and also commit extortion against them, demanding money in exchange for not destroying their immigration documents and not deporting them, even while they are in the offices of the Mexico City International Airport and on board units of the National Institute of Migration. There are reports of complicity between officials and the cartels, who share information to violate the rights of tens of thousands of migrant families. Former President Trump’s controversial immigration program is responsible since 2019 for leaving tens of thousands of migrants in northern Mexico insecure and at the mercy of organized crime.” (6)
Greenberg’s capitulation leads to absolutely no gains for the working class, as policy shifts according to the needs of the bourgeoisie. He will use local reformist organizations, federal threats, and more to deflect from his own culpability, but he is in no way separate from them in the grand scheme of maintaining the exploitation of workers. If workers rely on these politicians, they will be sold out to the meat grinder of capital—to be exploited, extorted, imprisoned, and left to die. We must struggle against this. We must fight ICE where they make their presence known, in the streets and the workplaces. We must fight against bourgeois politicians and do so by holding true to our class’s own political path. Workers of all countries must unite.
Citations:
[1] Musgrave, Beth. "KY Agencies with Agreements to Help ICE Have Doubled in Six Months." Lexington Herald Leader, July 2025. Link.
[2] Schipper, Joel. "Oldham County Residents Question Jail's New Policy to Indefinitely Hold Illegal Immigrants." WDRB, 15 Apr. 2025. Link.
[3] Garcia, Abdel. "Understanding Texas' Anti-Immigrant Dispute." New Worker, 10 July 2024. Link.
[4] "What Percent of Jobs in Kentucky Are Held by Immigrants?" USAFacts, 2022. Link.
[5] Suckow, Alex. "Louisville Changing Jail Policy to Get off 'Sanctuary City' List." WLKY, 22 July 2025. Link.[6] Communist Party of Mexico. "The Border Crisis: The View of the CP of Mexico." New Worker, 27 Jan. 2024. Link.