The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority over naturalization and the admission of foreign nationals. However, states retain significant police powers to regulate public safety, health, and welfare—authority that governors can use to shape immigration-related outcomes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that state laws touching on immigration are subject to preemption if they conflict with federal law, but also recognizes that states may take actions that complement or supplement federal enforcement efforts. This delicate balance gives governors a powerful platform to either expand or restrict the rights and protections available to immigrants within their borders.

Governors operate within a framework of cooperative federalism, where state and federal agencies often share responsibilities. For example, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, states may enter into 287(g) agreements that deputize state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law. Governors can choose to pursue, limit, or terminate such agreements. Additionally, governors can declare emergencies to redirect state funds toward border security, as seen in Texas and Arizona, or use their veto power to block legislation that would restrict immigrant access to driver’s licenses or in-state tuition. The authority of the governor is not absolute; state legislatures, courts, and local governments also shape the final policy landscape. Nevertheless, the governor’s role as the chief executive and political leader makes them the single most influential state actor in immigration policymaking.

Key Policy Levers Available to Governors

Executive Orders and Directives

Governors can issue executive orders that direct state agencies to adopt specific enforcement priorities or to refuse cooperation with federal immigration authorities. For instance, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in 2019 that expanded the state’s California Values Act, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from using resources to investigate, interrogate, or detain individuals solely for immigration purposes. Conversely, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued an executive order in 2021 requiring all state agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement to the fullest extent permitted by law. These directives set the tone for how hundreds of state employees interact with immigrant communities.

Budgetary Control and Resource Allocation

The governor’s budget proposal can allocate millions of dollars to border security, legal defense funds for immigrants, or programs to integrate newcomers. Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s use of the state’s Operation Lone Star initiative deployed thousands of Texas Department of Public Safety troopers and National Guard members to the border, funded by state appropriations. In contrast, New York Governor Kathy Hochul allocated $20 million to support legal services for immigrants facing deportation proceedings. Governors also set funding for language access services, public benefit eligibility for undocumented residents, and health care programs like Emergency Medicaid.

State Law Enforcement Cooperation

Governors decide whether to enter into or terminate 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These agreements allow specially trained state officers to perform immigration enforcement functions, such as interviewing detainees and issuing detainer requests. Some governors, like those in California and Oregon, have prohibited their state police from entering into such agreements. Others, like Florida’s DeSantis, have mandated participation. Governors also influence the use of detainer requests—informal requests from ICE to hold an individual beyond their criminal release date. States like Colorado have passed laws restricting compliance with detainers unless accompanied by a judicial warrant, while others, like Arizona, require compliance.

Driver’s Licenses and Identification Policies

One of the most visible state-level immigration policies is access to driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. As of 2025, 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws granting driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status. Governors have used executive orders to expand or restrict licensing. In 2023, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a bill allowing undocumented residents to obtain standard driver’s licenses, while Florida’s DeSantis signed legislation invalidating out-of-state licenses issued to undocumented residents. Such policies directly affect the daily lives of millions of immigrants and have implications for road safety, insurance rates, and police encounters.

Education and Public Benefits

State governors influence access to in-state tuition for undocumented students who have graduated from state high schools. Currently, 20 states provide in-state tuition rates to undocumented students, often through laws signed or championed by governors. In Texas, Governor Rick Perry signed the 2001 law that was among the first to grant in-state tuition. More recently, governors have pushed for expansions or restrictions. In 2024, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly vetoed a bill that would have prohibited undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition, but the legislature overrode her veto. Governors also weigh in on eligibility for state-funded health insurance programs, food assistance, and cash aid for immigrant families.

Case Studies of State-Level Immigration Action

Arizona and the SB 1070 Era

Arizona’s SB 1070, signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in 2010, was one of the most aggressive state immigration enforcement laws in modern history. The law required police officers to determine the immigration status of individuals during lawful stops if there was reasonable suspicion that they were in the country illegally. It also made it a state crime to be present without proper documentation. The law sparked national controversy, boycotts, and a Supreme Court challenge that struck down several provisions as preempted by federal law. However, the law’s “show me your papers” provision was upheld, and it set a model for copycat legislation in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Governor Brewer’s strong support for SB 1070 cemented her reputation as a hardliner and demonstrated how a governor can use the state legislative process to drive national debate.

California’s Sanctuary State Model

In contrast, California under Governor Jerry Brown and later Gavin Newsom has positioned itself as a national leader in immigrant protection. The 2017 California Values Act (SB 54) prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in most circumstances, bars the use of state resources for immigration enforcement, and limits the sharing of personal information. Governor Newsom also signed laws providing state-funded legal representation for immigrants facing deportation and expanding health coverage to low-income undocumented adults. These policies have faced legal challenges from the Trump administration but have largely been upheld, reinforcing California’s role as a counterweight to federal enforcement.

Texas’s Border Security Initiatives

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has made border security a defining issue of his tenure. In 2021, he launched Operation Lone Star, deploying thousands of state troopers and National Guard members to the border with Mexico, and allocating over $10 billion in state funds through 2024. The operation included the arrest of migrants and suspected smugglers on state charges, such as trespassing and criminal mischief, effectively bypassing federal immigration enforcement. Abbott also directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to install razor wire and floating barriers in the Rio Grande, which led to legal clashes with the Biden administration. The Supreme Court eventually ordered the removal of some barriers, but Texas continues to pursue aggressive border enforcement. Abbott’s actions have drawn both praise from border hawks and criticism from civil liberties groups, illustrating how a governor can unilaterally reshape immigration enforcement on the ground.

Florida’s Anti-Sanctuary Laws

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation in 2023 that severely restricted the ability of local governments to adopt sanctuary policies. The law requires all 67 Florida counties to cooperate with ICE, bans the use of state funds to provide legal defense for undocumented immigrants, and invalidates out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to undocumented individuals. It also mandates that hospitals collect data on patients’ immigration status and report it to the state. DeSantis further escalated state immigration enforcement by creating a dedicated state-level immigration enforcement unit and busing migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard and Sacramento as a political statement. These moves have made Florida a test case for a state that actively seeks to preempt local immigrant protections and work in tandem with federal enforcement.

The Political and Social Impact of Governor-Led Policies

On Immigrant Communities

State-level immigration policies profoundly affect the daily lives of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Sanctuary policies in states like California and New York reduce the fear of deportation during routine police interactions, encouraging immigrant victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of immigration consequences. Conversely, aggressive enforcement policies in states like Arizona and Florida have been linked to decreased trust in law enforcement, increased avoidance of public services, and heightened stress within immigrant households. A 2020 study by the Migration Policy Institute found that in states with restrictive laws, fewer undocumented immigrants seek medical care or enroll their children in public benefit programs, even when legally eligible. Governors’ decisions thus have measurable consequences for public health and safety.

On State Economy and Labor

Immigration policies also shape state labor markets. Undocumented immigrants make up about 4.4% of the U.S. workforce, with concentrations in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and caregiving. States that restrict immigrant access to driver’s licenses or employment protections may see labor shortages in key industries. For example, after Florida’s 2023 immigration law took effect, agriculture groups reported difficulty hiring workers, while some undocumented residents left the state. In contrast, states that offer driver’s licenses and in-state tuition often see higher rates of labor force participation among immigrant populations and better economic integration. A report by the Cato Institute noted that immigrants—both documented and undocumented—pay billions in state and local taxes annually, and restrictive policies can reduce those contributions.

On Federal-State Relations

Governors have become key actors in shaping the relationship between states and the federal government on immigration. During the Trump administration, Democratic governors in California, New York, and Washington sued the federal government over policies such as the travel ban, the public charge rule, and the termination of DACA. During the Biden administration, Republican governors in Texas, Florida, and Arizona have sued over changes to enforcement priorities, the parole program, and border wall funding. These legal battles have reached the Supreme Court multiple times, solidifying the role of state chief executives as checkpoints in the federal immigration system. The busing of migrants from southern border states to northern cities, orchestrated by Governors Abbott and DeSantis, created new friction between states and forced federal agencies to respond.

Almost every major state immigration policy has faced legal challenges, often brought by civil rights organizations or the U.S. Department of Justice. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Arizona v. United States established that states cannot create their own immigration crimes or enforce federal immigration law independently, but may assist federal enforcement through cooperative agreements. Later decisions have upheld state laws that regulate employment verification (e.g., the 2011 Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting case regarding Arizona’s E-Verify requirement) and that condition state benefits on immigration status. Lower courts have split on the constitutionality of Texas’s SB 4, which criminalizes “sanctuary” policies. These legal uncertainties mean that governors must navigate a rapidly shifting legal landscape, where a single appellate decision can expand or contract their authority overnight.

The Future of State Immigration Activism

Looking ahead, state governors are likely to remain central to immigration policy, especially as Congress continues to fail to pass comprehensive reform. Several trends point toward continued state-level activism:

  • Preemption battles: The federal government may seek to preempt state laws that interfere with enforcement priorities, but the outcome will depend on the courts. A 2024 ruling by the Fifth Circuit partially upheld Texas’s ability to enforce state trespass laws against migrants, suggesting that states may carve out new enforcement roles.
  • Interstate compacts: Governors may form regional agreements to coordinate enforcement or immigrant protections. For example, the Western States Pact (California, Oregon, Washington) has discussed joint legal strategies against federal immigration actions.
  • Executive action limits: As the use of executive orders increases, state legislatures may seek to limit governors’ unilateral powers. In Oklahoma, a 2024 law requires the governor to obtain legislative approval before entering into any 287(g) agreement.
  • Humanitarian response: Governors in border states may expand their role in providing shelter, medical care, and transportation for migrants released by federal authorities. In 2023, New York Governor Hochul declared a state of emergency to address the influx of asylum seekers, allocating billions for housing and services.
  • Technology and data sharing: Governors push for increased use of biometric data sharing, license plate readers, and databases to track immigrant presence. States like Texas and Florida are investing in technology to share vehicle and identity data with ICE.

Conclusion: Governors as Shapers of Immigration Policy

State governors are not mere implementers of federal immigration law; they are active shapers of the policies that affect millions of immigrants and the communities they live in. Through executive orders, budget decisions, law enforcement directives, and legislative advocacy, governors can either expand opportunities for immigrants or restrict their rights. The diversity of state approaches—from Arizona’s crackdown to California’s sanctuary—reflects deep political divides and demonstrates the power of federalism to produce localized outcomes. As immigration remains a top political issue, the governor’s role in this arena will only grow, making the study of state-level immigration policy essential for understanding the future of American immigration law.

For those interested in further exploration, the Migration Policy Institute’s state data portal offers detailed statistics on immigrant populations and policies. The Pew Research Center regularly publishes analyses of public opinion on immigration. Legal scholars can consult the Cornell Legal Information Institute’s overview of immigration federalism. News coverage of specific governor actions is available through outlets like Reuters and Politico.