ICE admits using Roxbury site despite court restrictions

Activists were right. The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged two September operations at a warehouse whose planned conversion into a detention facility remains on hold.

The Department of Homeland Security has admitted using the parking lot of a Roxbury warehouse to process immigrant detainees twice last month, even though the activity may violate a federal court order restricting how the agency can use the property.

Agents from the Newark Enforcement and Removal Operations Field Office brought nine undocumented immigrants to the massive warehouse after a Sept. 4 raid in Dover, according to an email from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s congressional liaison sent to Democratic Rep. Analilia Mejia.

“In accordance with routine operating procedures, officers chose this location for reasons of safety and privacy and were in communication with a supervisory officer throughout the course of the operation,” the liaison wrote.

Four days later, on Sept. 8, agents from the same office again used the warehouse’s parking lot as a staging ground and initial processing site for five immigrants arrested in Dover and Ledgewood.

The activity stopped after the field office director ordered managers and supervisors on Sept. 14 to tell agents they could not use the site for immigration enforcement actions involving the apprehension and processing of detainees, the liaison wrote.

Mejia, who released the email Oct. 13, said in a statement posted to social media that the department had admitted what activists had long suspected: ICE was using the facility at 1879 Route 46 as a processing site even though it wasn’t supposed to be.

“Let’s be clear: This was no accident,” Mejia said. “ICE officers deliberately misled the municipality and state by conducting processing operations with supervisory knowledge. According to communications with my office, only after whistleblowers raised concerns, did they cease activity.”

“The fact that ICE describes potential illegal activity as ‘routine operating procedures’ should alarm every New Jerseyan,” she added. “ICE does not get to cherry-pick which laws to follow.”

In a Wednesday email, a spokesperson for New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said the state’s top cop was aware of and looking into the reports.

“If we learn of violations of the law or of a court order, we will of course take appropriate action,” the spokesperson said.

Sean Higgins, a spokesperson for Gov. Mikie Sherrill, added that the governor had been notified that neither ICE nor DHS would use the parking lot for ICE operations again.

Homeland Security bought the warehouse in February for $129.3 million with the intention of converting it into a processing center for newly detained immigrants swept up in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation raids.

Federal planning documents showed the facility was slated to hold as many as 1,500 people, though federal officials later said in court it would hold fewer than 550 detainees.

Activists organized major protests and packed local government meetings, pushing officials in the Republican-led town to join a state lawsuit seeking to halt the project. That suit, filed in U.S. District Court in March, accused federal officials of ignoring laws that require environmental reviews and consultations with state and local governments.

In May, ICE agreed to halt most work at the site while it conducted the environmental assessment. Under the consent order, ICE can install fencing, security cameras and alarms and perform basic property maintenance, but broader conversion work must remain on hold.

“They can take care of the lawn, or the heating and cooling,” David Broderick, legal adviser for the activist group Project No ICE North Jersey Alliance, or Project NINJA, told The Jersey Vindicator in September. “But they can’t do anything else.”

The group no longer believes ICE is holding up its end of the deal.

On Sept. 11, Project NINJA sent a letter to Davenport’s office saying an immigrant man picked up alongside several others in Dover on Sept. 4 told a relative that ICE agents drove him west, then deposited him at what seemed to be a jail.

The group also shared videos of immigration agents arresting undocumented people in Dover, as well as recordings of the same vehicles arriving at the Roxbury warehouse.

“We believe this has been going on for a while,” Broderick added.

New Jersey officials subsequently said in court filings that they were investigating the reports and would ask a federal judge to intervene if they determined the activity violated the court order.

At the Roxbury Township Council’s Oct. 13 meeting, Deputy Mayor Mark Crowley read a prepared statement saying local officials and the Attorney General’s Office were still investigating the allegations.

The township attorney and the attorney general have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to inspect the facility, Crowley said. But the Justice Department rejected the request because of the lawsuit and said any inspection requests must be handled through the courts.

The Justice Department also confirmed that DHS had used the parking lot twice but said agents did not bring the detainees inside. DHS has also been using the warehouse for training, Crowley said.

“We are currently reviewing our options,” Crowley said. “Roxbury Township remains engaged in active litigation against the federal government. To protect the integrity of this process, and as has been in the township’s past practice, we will not publicly discuss political, legislative, legal or investigative strategies related to the lawsuit.”

In a news release, Project NINJA argued ICE did, in fact, violate the court order because the order covers the entire premises, not just the building’s interior.

“While ICE might be claiming not to have brought detainees inside the warehouse, they admitted they violated the court order by using the property for detention operations, and should be sanctioned accordingly,” Broderick said in the release.

A DHS spokesperson declined to comment Wednesday, citing the litigation.