On January 22nd, Hanover County got a letter from the Department of Homeland Security which confirmed their plans to obtain a building on Lakeridge Parkway, which DHS would “purchase, occupy, and rehabilitate” for use by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The extant warehouse would be converted into a 1,500 bed, 552,000 square foot immigrant processing facility operated by DHS.
“Tentage and a guard shack may be included,” wrote Gabrielle Fernandez, the Environmental Protection Specialist for DHS, in the letter.
The building is owned by the Vancouver-based Jim Pattison Developments, the real estate branch of the billionaire Pattison’s conglomerate. After not responding to requests for comment, Jim Pattison Developments released a statement on their website which claimed that they were not aware of the buyer until “some time later”, and acknowledged that they “(…)understand that the conversation around immigration policy and enforcement is particularly heated, and has become much more so over the past few weeks.”
On Wednesday afternoon, the Board of Supervisors met in a closed door session in which they conferred with legal counsel. Hours later, the administrative building at County Complex Road opened its doors for public discussion. One resident, Coley Anderson, commented before the board in opposition to the plans (per The Virginian-Pilot):
“We should do everything we can to make it as difficult for them as possible in buying this facility. We’re careening towards an authoritarian state, and we need to make it known that we will not stand for these atrocities against humanity.”
The plans faced dogged criticism from most who gathered outside in protest, while some out of the estimated 1,000 who attended did so in support of the plans. “They should get no special treatment, nor should they be above the law. I will gladly assist DHS in welcoming a facility in our area, for they are needed,” voiced one attendee, according to reporting from WWBT.
The Hanover County Board of Supervisors made clear their opposition to the plans from the beginning of the session. They also made clear that the Board of Supervisors has no formal authority over the purchase or use of the building by a federal agency. Still, members of the Board are hopeful that enough opposition will steer the plans elsewhere.
Members of the Hanover County Board of Supervisors urged members of the General Assembly to arrange for a different prospective location, as the property under consideration is in a heavily commercialized area by the I-95/295 interchange, with growing business and tax revenue.
The Board is concerned about the impact to residents of the area. “(…)Future revenue losses are likely to be significantly higher,” he said during the meeting on Wednesday, per reporting from Virginia Scope. “These lost revenues would normally go to support vital and essential services that the county delivers to our citizens.” Davis estimates a loss in revenue in excess of $1 million per year.
Another concern for the facility is the zoning of the lot, which would normally require oversight and approval from other local regulatory authorities in order to change. The lot in question, which currently has only a warehouse, is not currently suited to convey as a detention center.
“Simply put, a DHS facility at this property (..) is not consistent with the established land use for this business, residential, and commerce area. The Board opposes the purchase of this property by DHS because of these well-planned current land uses,” said Board Chair Sean Davis, reading the Board’s official statement.
“Please know that while the federal government is generally exempt from our zoning regulations and the board is limited in being able to prevent federal facilities from operating – if, in fact, the federal government chooses to do so, it is our expectation that DHS, after receiving the county comments, reconsiders its decision to purchase this property.”
Davis also mentioned the operation of Pamunkey Regional Jail, a correctional facility in Hanover County, which already functions as a detention center. The Hanover County Board of Supervisors has until mid-February to formally respond to the request from DHS.
The General Assembly will see a slew of Democrat-sponsored bills aimed at reining in the potential impact of ICE in the Commonwealth.
HB1442 and HB1440, both introduced by Alfonso Lopez (D-Arlington), would create enclaves of state or local land in which ICE would not be permitted to operate. HB1441 articulates the extent to which state and local law enforcement can assist federal officers in enforcing federal law.
HB1440 applies specifically to government facilities owned by the state or locality, including schools and universities, hospitals and healthcare facilities, and attorneys offices, and prohibits employees of the facility from knowingly permitting entry into areas of the facility that aren’t open to the public for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement.
HB1441 would prevent local or state law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement or aid in the enforcement of federal law without legal cause, such as a legal detainer, signed warrant, or subpoena, but makes allowances for instances where such cooperation is “otherwise permitted or required by state or federal law”.
HB1442 is the polling place bill, in which federal immigration officers would be prohibited from enforcing federal law within 40 feet of a building that is being used as a polling place, election certification site, or recount site.
Lopez’s bills received major backlash from members of the Republican caucus for attempting to legislate a federal agency on the state level, and thereby getting the legitimacy of the bills into quite the jam Constitution-wise. It’s almost as bad as the lambasting that he received from his own constituents after financial disclosures revealed that he received more than $25,000 from an immigrant detention facility in Farmville between 2014 and 2016.
HB1161, introduced by Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax), would penalize the dissemination of personal information to state or federal authorities beyond what is “the extent necessary” to fulfil the explicit administrative purpose. This would include disseminating information to a federal agency, such as ICE.
Three bills were introduced by Senator Saddam Salim (D-Fairfax): SB351, SB352, and SB783. All three were introduced as measures aimed at restoring trust in law enforcement within the state.
SB352 would prohibit state and federal law enforcement from wearing a face covering during operations (with some exceptions), and would both result in demotion and a Class 1 misdemeanor to do so in knowing violation of the law.
SB351 would prohibit civil arrests made while an individual is arriving to or leaving a court appearance without a signed judicial warrant. SB351 is the companion bill to HB650, introduced by Delegate Katrina Callsen (D-Charlottesville).
SB783 would prohibit local or state police participation in fulfilling the functions of a federal immigration officer without having explicit duties in writing. SB783 would also require data collection from investigations or actions fulfilled by local LEOs in conjunction with federal agents, to ensure that federal law enforcement do not violate state law during their actions.
“The three bills I introduced share one goal: ensuring that immigrants, protestors, and all Virginians who value peace and justice know the Commonwealth and its law enforcement agencies are on their side.” Said Salim in a post made on his social media accounts.
In some of her first moments as Governor, Abigail Spanberger rescinded Executive Order 47. This Youngkin-era EO permitted law enforcement agencies in county and state jurisdictions to opt into a service model in which ICE could deputize local law enforcement officers to participate in federal operations. These contracts, named “287(g) contracts” after the section of law which authorizes them, have been in place since March of last year when Youngkin made the order.
Certain parts of the Commonwealth have been looking more closely at their law enforcements’ collaboration with ICE— Alexandria Sheriff Sean Casey, who was named to Abigail Spanberger’s Transition Committee for Public Safety and Homeland Security Policy, transferred 40 people into ICE custody between January and August of 2025. The total released by the Alexandria Sheriff’s Department for the year 2025 is 54 detainees transferred into ICE custody. Alexandria does not have a 287(g) contract, and has not had a contract with ICE since Casey cancelled it in 2022. Still, Casey has come under fire from advocacy groups for his purportedly willing participation.
According to the Legal Aid Justice Center, there are at least 32 operations in the Commonwealth that operate under 287(g) contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, but the Hanover County Sheriff’s Department is not one, and neither is Alexandria’s Sheriff’s Department.
This all comes after a January full of ICE activity nationwide— “Operation Metro Surge” is the formal title of the Twin Cities-based reign of detention, raids, and violent operations that have stunned the nation. The continued brutality has turned many Minneapolis neighborhoods, businesses, and schools into frontlines.
A processing facility operated by ICE in Central Virginia would, doubtlessly, compound the anxieties of many Virginia residents who worry that the violence in Minneapolis is coming home. For others, the recent memory of MS-13 arrests in Northern Virginia during the Youngkin era are evidence enough that an increased presence of ICE is called for:
“When Governor Youngkin had the agreement, we were able to catch all those MS-13 gang members up in Northern Virginia. If we’re not cooperating with ICE, folks are going to get harmed in Virginia.” said House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore after the rescinding of Executive Order 47.
Lieutenant Governor Ghazala Hashmi issued a statement in which she addressed her own concerns over such a facility as the one proposed in Hanover— “(L)arge-scale detention has raised persistent legal concerns, particularly when oversight, standards of care, and due process protections are lacking, creating substantial legal and financial risk for states and localities, while doing nothing to solve the challenges within our immigration system and instead diverting resources away from what actually works: the rule of law, accountability, and transparency.”
