ICE’s Secret Warehouse Purchases in Socorro, Texas: A Legal Emergency for Border Communities

When Federal Secrecy Endangers El Paso Families

The three hulking warehouses now owned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Socorro, Texas didn’t appear overnight—but they might as well have. Mayor Rudy Cruz Jr. first heard about the $122.8 million purchase through rumors, not official channels. “Nobody from the federal government bothered to pick up the phone or even send us any type of correspondence letting us know what’s about to take place,” Cruz told reporters. His frustration is understandable. In a bedroom community of 40,000 people where orchards and irrigation ditches share the landscape with strip malls, truck stops, and distribution warehouses, the sudden appearance of an 826,000-square-foot detention facility—large enough to hold 4½ Walmart Supercenters—isn’t just surprising. It’s a legal emergency.

This isn’t just happening in Socorro. Across the country, at least 20 communities have become stealth targets for ICE’s $45 billion detention center expansion. In Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Maryland, and Texas, mayors, county commissioners, and governors are learning about ICE’s ambitions only after the agency has already inked deals. The pattern is clear: secrecy first, consequences later. And in Socorro, those consequences could be severe.

“I just feel,” said Cruz, whose wife was born in Mexico, “that they do these things in silence so that they don’t get opposition.”

That silence isn’t just frustrating—it’s dangerous. When federal agencies operate in the shadows, they bypass the safeguards that protect communities. They strain local resources without warning. They reduce tax revenue without consultation. And they create environments where human rights violations can flourish unchecked. For the families of El Paso and Socorro, this isn’t just a policy dispute. It’s a legal emergency that demands immediate attention.

The $45 Billion Expansion: What ICE Isn’t Telling You

ICE’s warehouse purchases are part of a massive, multi-state expansion plan that has flown under the radar until now. The agency has already purchased at least seven warehouses across five states, with more deals in the works. Here’s what we know about the scope of this project:

The full scope of the project wasn’t confirmed until February 13, 2026, when New Hampshire’s governor released an ICE document showing the agency plans to spend $38.3 billion to boost detention capacity to 92,000 beds. Since President Donald Trump took office, the number of people detained by ICE has nearly doubled—from 40,000 to 75,000—spread across more than 225 sites.

ICE’s plan includes:
– Eight large-scale detention centers, each capable of housing 7,000 to 10,000 detainees
– 16 smaller regional processing centers
– Acquisition of 10 existing “turnkey” facilities

This expansion is funded through last year’s tax and spending bill, which nearly doubled DHS’s budget. To build the detention centers, the Trump administration is using military contracts—contracts that allow for secrecy and rapid deployment without the usual safeguards.

Socorro’s Warehouses: A Case Study in Federal Overreach

In Socorro, the ICE-owned warehouses stand in stark contrast to the town’s Spanish colonial and mission architecture. At a recent City Council meeting, public comments stretched for hours. Jorge Mendoza, an El Paso County retiree whose grandparents immigrated from Mexico, spoke about his concerns: “I think a lot of innocent people are getting caught up in their dragnet.”

Many speakers invoked the memory of three recent deaths at an ICE detention facility at the nearby Fort Bliss Army base. The connection isn’t lost on anyone: these warehouses aren’t just buildings. They’re potential sites of human suffering, and Socorro’s residents know it.

The concerns raised at that meeting weren’t just emotional—they were practical:
– Water Supply: Can Socorro’s infrastructure handle the demand of a facility that could house thousands?
– Sewage Capacity: Will the town’s treatment systems be overwhelmed?
– Tax Revenue: Federal facilities are exempt from property taxes, meaning Socorro loses potential revenue while bearing the burden of increased service demands
– Public Safety: How will local emergency services handle incidents at the facility?
– Community Impact: What does this mean for Socorro’s predominantly Hispanic population, many of whom have family members who immigrated from Mexico?

These aren’t hypothetical questions. In Social Circle, Georgia—a city of just 5,000 people—officials were stunned by ICE’s plans for a facility that could hold 7,500 to 10,000 people. The city only heard from DHS after the $128.6 million sale was completed. Like Socorro, Social Circle questioned whether its water and sewage systems could keep up. ICE claimed it had done due diligence, but the city revealed that ICE’s analysis relied on a yet-to-be-built sewer treatment plant.

“To be clear,” Social Circle said in a statement, “the City has repeatedly communicated that it does not have the capacity or resources to accommodate this demand, and no proposal presented to date has demonstrated otherwise.”

If it can happen in Social Circle, it can happen in Socorro. And if it happens in Socorro, it affects all of El Paso.

The Legal Emergency: Why This Expansion Is Unlawful

ICE’s secretive approach isn’t just poor community relations—it may be unlawful. Several legal doctrines could apply to challenge these purchases:

1. Failure to Conduct Environmental Review

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies must assess the environmental impact of major projects. Given the strain these facilities will place on local water supplies, sewage systems, and traffic patterns, it’s likely that ICE is required to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or at least an Environmental Assessment (EA). The fact that communities are learning about these purchases after the fact suggests NEPA violations.

2. Violation of Local Zoning and Land Use Laws

Most municipalities have zoning ordinances that regulate land use. Converting warehouses into detention centers likely violates local zoning laws. In Socorro, the sudden appearance of a federal facility without local approval raises serious questions about whether ICE is respecting local governance.

3. Due Process Violations

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires that government actions not be arbitrary or capricious. When ICE purchases property without notifying or consulting affected communities, it deprives those communities of the opportunity to be heard—a fundamental due process right.

4. Potential Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The APA requires federal agencies to follow certain procedures when implementing policies, including providing notice and opportunity for public comment. ICE’s secretive approach may violate these requirements.

5. Constitutional Concerns: The Non-Delegation Doctrine

The non-delegation doctrine limits Congress’s ability to delegate its legislative powers to other branches. By using military contracts to bypass normal procurement processes, the Trump administration may be exceeding its constitutional authority.

Charles Tiefer, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Baltimore Law School, has noted that these military contracts “allow a lot of secrecy and for DHS to move quickly without following the usual processes and safeguards.” That speed and secrecy come at a cost—one that Socorro and other communities are now paying.

The Human Cost: What Happens Inside These Facilities?

The secrecy surrounding these warehouse purchases isn’t just about process—it’s about what happens inside. At the Socorro City Council meeting, Eduardo Castillo, a former attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, told city officials that challenging the federal government is “not impossible.” But he warned: “If you don’t at least try, you will end up with another inhumane detention facility built in your jurisdiction and under your watch.”

His warning is well-founded. ICE detention facilities have a long history of human rights abuses:

Medical Neglect

Detainees have died from treatable conditions due to medical neglect. In 2019, a 40-year-old man died at a Georgia ICE facility after being denied medical care for a heart condition. In 2020, a 34-year-old man died at a Louisiana facility after being denied treatment for COVID-19 symptoms.

Unsanitary Conditions

Reports of overcrowding, lack of access to clean water, and unsanitary living conditions are common. In 2019, an inspector general report found “immediate risks or egregious violations of detention standards” at multiple ICE facilities, including spoiled food, moldy showers, and inadequate medical care.

Abuse and Mistreatment

Detainees have reported physical abuse, verbal harassment, and psychological torment. In 2021, a detainee at a Georgia facility reported being beaten by guards, resulting in a broken jaw and ribs.

Deaths in Custody

Since 2017, at least 56 people have died in ICE custody. Many of these deaths were preventable and resulted from medical neglect or inadequate care.

The three recent deaths at the Fort Bliss ICE facility are fresh in Socorro’s memory. If history is any guide, the new warehouses could become sites of similar tragedies—unless someone holds ICE accountable.

The Financial Hit: How Communities Lose When ICE Moves In

Even communities that supported President Trump in 2024 have been caught off guard by ICE’s plans. In rural Pennsylvania’s Berks County, commissioner Christian Leinbach called the district attorney, the sheriff, the jail warden, and the county’s head of emergency services when he first heard ICE might buy a warehouse in Upper Bern Township. No one knew anything.

A few days later, a local official informed him that ICE had already bought the building for $87.4 million. “There was absolutely no warning,” Leinbach said during a meeting. He raised concerns that turning the warehouse into a federal facility means a loss of more than $800,000 in local tax dollars.

ICE has touted the income taxes its workers would pay, but the facilities themselves will be exempt from property taxes. That’s a net loss for communities already struggling with tight budgets.

In Georgia, Social Circle officials were similarly blindsided. The city, which has a population of just 5,000, worried about the infrastructure needs for a facility that could hold 7,500 to 10,000 people. Like Socorro, Social Circle questioned whether its water and sewage systems could keep up.

The Arizona Backlash: A Warning for Texas

In the Phoenix suburb of Surprise, Arizona, officials sent a scathing letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after ICE bought a massive warehouse in a residential area about a mile from a high school. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, raised the prospect of going to court to have the site declared a public nuisance.

This kind of legal challenge could be a model for Texas communities. Under Texas law, a public nuisance is defined as “a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities.” A detention facility that strains local resources, reduces property values, and creates safety concerns could certainly meet that definition.

What Can Socorro and El Paso Do? Legal Strategies to Fight Back

Eduardo Castillo told Socorro officials that challenging the federal government is “intimidating but not impossible.” Here are some legal strategies that could be employed:

1. File a NEPA Lawsuit

As mentioned earlier, ICE may have violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct an environmental review. A lawsuit could force ICE to assess the impact of the facility on Socorro’s water supply, sewage system, and traffic patterns.

2. Challenge Local Zoning Violations

Socorro could file a lawsuit arguing that the warehouse-to-detention-center conversion violates local zoning laws. While federal facilities are generally exempt from local zoning, there may be exceptions if the facility poses a public nuisance or safety hazard.

3. Sue for Due Process Violations

A lawsuit could argue that ICE’s failure to notify or consult with the community violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This would be a novel legal theory, but given the egregious nature of ICE’s secrecy, it’s worth pursuing.

4. File an APA Lawsuit

The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to follow certain procedures, including notice and comment. A lawsuit could argue that ICE violated the APA by failing to provide adequate notice of its plans.

5. Pursue a Public Nuisance Claim

As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes suggested, a detention facility could be declared a public nuisance under Texas law. This would require proving that the facility substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land in Socorro.

6. Lobby for Congressional Action

While challenging ICE in court is difficult, Congress has the power to investigate and defund the agency’s expansion plans. Local representatives could push for hearings or legislation to halt the project.

7. Mobilize Public Opinion

Public pressure can be a powerful tool. Socorro residents could organize protests, petitions, and letter-writing campaigns to draw attention to the issue. Media coverage could force ICE to be more transparent.

The Bracero Program: A Historical Warning

The crowds waiting to speak at the Socorro City Council meeting spilled out of the chambers, some standing beside murals paying tribute to the World War II-era Braceros Program. That program allowed Mexican farmworkers to be guest workers in the U.S., stoking Socorro’s economy and population. But it also set the stage for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration to begin mass deportations in the 1950s aimed at people who had crossed the border illegally.

The parallels are striking. The Bracero Program brought Mexican workers to the U.S. legally, but when the program ended, many stayed illegally. Now, ICE’s expansion threatens to repeat history—bringing in large numbers of detainees, straining local resources, and creating a permanent underclass of people in legal limbo.

Socorro’s residents know this history. They know what happens when federal immigration policies are implemented without regard for local communities. And they’re determined not to let it happen again.

The Role of Legal Representation: Why You Need an Attorney

If you’re a Socorro or El Paso resident concerned about ICE’s expansion, you may be wondering what you can do. The first step is to understand your legal rights—and that starts with consulting an attorney.

At Attorney911, we’ve seen what happens when federal agencies operate in secrecy. We’ve represented clients in cases involving government overreach, civil rights violations, and catastrophic injuries caused by negligence. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has over 25 years of experience fighting for victims of injustice. He knows how to hold powerful entities accountable—and he’s not afraid to take on the federal government.

Here’s why you need an attorney if you’re concerned about ICE’s expansion:

1. Understanding Your Legal Options

The legal landscape surrounding ICE’s expansion is complex. An experienced attorney can help you understand your options, from filing lawsuits to lobbying for congressional action.

2. Filing Lawsuits

If ICE has violated environmental laws, zoning ordinances, or due process rights, a lawsuit may be the best way to stop the expansion. Our firm has experience with NEPA lawsuits, APA challenges, and public nuisance claims.

3. Protecting Your Community

ICE’s expansion isn’t just a federal issue—it’s a local one. An attorney can help you organize your community, file petitions, and mobilize public opinion to put pressure on ICE.

4. Holding ICE Accountable

If ICE has already begun operations in Socorro, an attorney can help you document abuses and file complaints with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

5. Preparing for the Future

Even if you can’t stop ICE’s expansion now, an attorney can help you prepare for the future. This might include negotiating with ICE for community benefits, ensuring that local resources aren’t overwhelmed, or planning for the long-term impact on Socorro’s infrastructure.

What to Do If You’re Affected by ICE’s Expansion

If you or a loved one has been affected by ICE’s expansion in Socorro or elsewhere in Texas, here’s what you should do:

1. Document Everything

Keep records of any interactions with ICE or its contractors. This includes:
– Notices or letters from ICE
– Visits from ICE agents
– Communications with local officials
– Any incidents at ICE facilities

2. Know Your Rights

You have the right to remain silent if questioned by ICE. You also have the right to speak to an attorney. If ICE agents come to your home, you do not have to let them in unless they have a warrant signed by a judge.

3. Consult an Attorney

If you’re concerned about ICE’s expansion, consult an attorney as soon as possible. The legal landscape is complex, and time is of the essence.

4. Get Involved in Your Community

Attend city council meetings, join local advocacy groups, and stay informed about ICE’s activities in your area. Public pressure can be a powerful tool for change.

5. Report Abuses

If you witness or experience abuse at an ICE facility, report it to:
– The Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
– The ICE Office of Professional Responsibility
– Local advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The Bottom Line: This Is a Legal Emergency

ICE’s secretive expansion isn’t just a policy issue—it’s a legal emergency. The agency is bypassing environmental laws, ignoring local governance, and straining community resources. In Socorro, the sudden appearance of three massive warehouses has left residents scrambling for answers. But they’re not powerless.

Legal strategies exist to challenge ICE’s expansion, from NEPA lawsuits to public nuisance claims. Communities can organize, mobilize public opinion, and hold the agency accountable. And individuals affected by ICE’s actions can seek legal representation to protect their rights.

At Attorney911, we’ve seen what happens when powerful entities operate in secrecy. We’ve represented clients in cases involving government overreach, civil rights violations, and catastrophic injuries. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has over 25 years of experience fighting for victims of injustice. He knows how to hold powerful entities accountable—and he’s ready to fight for Socorro and El Paso.

“If you don’t at least try,” Eduardo Castillo told Socorro officials, “you will end up with another inhumane detention facility built in your jurisdiction and under your watch.”

The time to try is now. If you’re concerned about ICE’s expansion in Socorro or anywhere in Texas, don’t wait. Call Attorney911 today at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a free consultation. Our team, including associate attorney Lupe Peña—a former insurance defense attorney who knows how these agencies operate—is ready to help.

The Legal Precedents: What Courts Have Said About Government Secrecy

While ICE’s warehouse expansion is unprecedented in scale, courts have consistently held that federal agencies cannot operate in secrecy when their actions affect local communities. Here are some relevant legal precedents:

1. Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal agencies must provide a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of their decisions. The Court held that agencies cannot make decisions based on “post hoc rationalizations” or secret evidence. This case established the principle that federal agencies must be transparent about their decision-making processes.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE failed to conduct an environmental review of its warehouse purchases, a court could force the agency to do so under Overton Park.

2. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971)

This companion case to Overton Park established that courts can review agency decisions to ensure they comply with the law. The Court held that agencies must provide a “detailed statement” of their decision-making process, including alternatives considered and environmental impacts.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE’s decision-making process was arbitrary or capricious, a court could overturn its warehouse purchases under this precedent.

3. Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right of citizens to sue federal agencies for failing to comply with environmental laws. The Court held that plaintiffs must show they are “adversely affected” by the agency’s actions, but this standard is relatively easy to meet for communities like Socorro.

Why It Matters for Socorro: Socorro residents could sue ICE for failing to comply with NEPA, arguing that the agency’s actions will adversely affect their community.

4. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

While this case limited standing for some environmental lawsuits, it also reaffirmed that plaintiffs must show a “concrete and particularized” injury. For Socorro, this could include the strain on local resources, the loss of tax revenue, or the impact on public safety.

Why It Matters for Socorro: Socorro could argue that ICE’s expansion will cause concrete injuries to the community, giving it standing to sue.

5. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that states have a special role in protecting their citizens from environmental harm. The Court held that states can sue federal agencies to force them to regulate pollutants.

Why It Matters for Socorro: Texas could sue ICE to force the agency to comply with environmental laws, arguing that the state has a special interest in protecting its citizens.

6. Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal agencies must provide a “reasoned explanation” for their decisions. The Court held that agencies cannot rely on “contrived” or “pretextual” justifications for their actions.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE’s justification for its warehouse purchases is pretextual—such as claiming the facilities are for “processing” when they’re actually for long-term detention—a court could overturn the agency’s decision.

The Nuclear Verdicts: What Happens When Agencies Are Held Accountable

When federal agencies or corporations operate with reckless disregard for the law, juries have shown they’re willing to impose massive penalties. Here are some recent examples of “nuclear verdicts” that demonstrate what’s possible when entities are held fully accountable:

1. $1 Billion Verdict (Florida, 2021)

In a case involving a fatal trucking accident, a Florida jury awarded $1 billion to the family of an 18-year-old killed by a trucking company’s gross negligence. The verdict included $100 million in compensatory damages and $900 million in punitive damages.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE’s expansion leads to preventable deaths or injuries, the agency could face similar penalties.

2. $462 Million Verdict (Missouri, 2024)

A Missouri jury awarded $462 million to the families of two men decapitated in an underride crash. The verdict held the trucking company and manufacturer liable for failing to install adequate underride guards.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE’s facilities lack proper safety measures, the agency could be held liable for resulting injuries or deaths.

3. $160 Million Verdict (Alabama, 2024)

An Alabama jury awarded $160 million to a man left quadriplegic after a rollover accident caused by a trucking company’s negligence. The verdict included $75 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE’s expansion leads to accidents or injuries due to negligence, the agency could face similar penalties.

4. $150 Million Settlement (Texas, 2022)

In the largest 18-wheeler settlement in U.S. history, a Texas trucking company agreed to pay $150 million to the families of two children killed in a crash. The settlement resolved claims that the company had pressured drivers to violate hours-of-service regulations.

Why It Matters for Socorro: If ICE’s expansion leads to similar violations, the agency could be held liable for resulting injuries or deaths.

The FMCSA Connection: How Trucking Regulations Apply to ICE’s Expansion

While ICE’s expansion isn’t directly about trucking, the agency’s use of warehouses and its impact on local infrastructure have significant implications for commercial vehicle safety. Here’s how FMCSA regulations could come into play:

1. Increased Truck Traffic

ICE’s expansion will likely lead to increased truck traffic in Socorro and El Paso. More trucks on the road mean a higher risk of accidents. Under FMCSA regulations, trucking companies must ensure their drivers are properly trained, their vehicles are well-maintained, and they comply with hours-of-service rules.

Relevant FMCSA Regulations:
– 49 CFR § 391.11: Driver qualification standards
– 49 CFR § 392.3: Ill or fatigued operators
– 49 CFR § 395: Hours of service regulations

2. Cargo Securement

If ICE transports detainees in commercial vehicles, those vehicles must comply with FMCSA cargo securement rules. Improperly secured cargo—including human cargo—can lead to accidents and injuries.

Relevant FMCSA Regulations:
– 49 CFR § 393.100-136: Cargo securement standards

3. Vehicle Maintenance

ICE’s expansion will put additional strain on local roads and infrastructure. Trucking companies operating in the area must ensure their vehicles are properly maintained to avoid accidents caused by brake failures, tire blowouts, or other mechanical issues.

Relevant FMCSA Regulations:
– 49 CFR § 396: Inspection, repair, and maintenance

4. Driver Fatigue

The increased demand for trucking services could lead to driver fatigue, especially if companies pressure drivers to meet tight deadlines. Fatigued driving is a leading cause of trucking accidents.

Relevant FMCSA Regulations:
– 49 CFR § 395: Hours of service regulations

What This Means for El Paso Drivers

While Socorro is the immediate focus of ICE’s expansion, the impact will be felt across El Paso County. Here’s what local drivers need to know:

1. Increased Truck Traffic on I-10 and Other Corridors

ICE’s expansion will likely lead to more trucks on I-10, one of the busiest freight corridors in the country. This increases the risk of accidents, especially in high-traffic areas like the interchange with Loop 375.

2. Strain on Local Infrastructure

More trucks mean more wear and tear on local roads. Potholes, cracks, and other road defects can contribute to accidents. Local governments may struggle to keep up with maintenance, increasing the risk for all drivers.

3. Distracted Driving Risks

With more trucks on the road, drivers may be tempted to use their phones or other devices to navigate around congestion. Distracted driving is a leading cause of accidents, and truck drivers are not immune to this risk.

4. Fatigued Driving

The increased demand for trucking services could lead to driver fatigue, especially if companies pressure drivers to meet tight deadlines. Fatigued driving is particularly dangerous for truck drivers, who operate vehicles that can weigh up to 80,000 pounds.

5. Cargo Securement Issues

If ICE transports detainees in commercial vehicles, those vehicles must comply with FMCSA cargo securement rules. Improperly secured cargo—including human cargo—can lead to accidents and injuries.

How Attorney911 Can Help El Paso Drivers

At Attorney911, we’ve seen firsthand how trucking accidents can devastate lives. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has over 25 years of experience fighting for victims of trucking accidents. We know how to hold trucking companies accountable for negligence, and we’re ready to help El Paso drivers who are affected by ICE’s expansion.

Here’s how we can help:

1. Investigating Trucking Accidents

If you’re involved in a trucking accident, we’ll investigate the cause and identify all liable parties. This includes:
– The truck driver
– The trucking company
– The cargo owner
– The maintenance company
– The manufacturer (if a defect contributed to the accident)

2. Preserving Evidence

Critical evidence in trucking cases can disappear quickly. We send spoliation letters to preserve:
– ECM/black box data
– ELD records
– Maintenance logs
– Driver qualification files
– Cell phone records

3. Proving Negligence

We know how to prove negligence in trucking cases. This includes violations of FMCSA regulations, such as:
– Hours of service violations
– Failure to maintain vehicles
– Improper cargo securement
– Distracted driving
– Fatigued driving

4. Maximizing Your Recovery

Trucking companies carry high insurance limits—often $1 million or more. We know how to access these policies to maximize your recovery. This includes compensation for:
– Medical expenses
– Lost wages
– Pain and suffering
– Property damage
– Punitive damages (in cases of gross negligence)

5. Fighting for Justice

If your case goes to trial, we’re ready to fight for you. We’ve secured multi-million dollar verdicts for our clients, and we’re not afraid to take on powerful defendants.

The Time to Act Is Now

ICE’s expansion in Socorro is a legal emergency for El Paso County. The agency’s secrecy, its disregard for local communities, and its potential to strain local resources make this a crisis that demands immediate action.

If you’re a Socorro or El Paso resident concerned about ICE’s expansion, don’t wait. The legal landscape is complex, and time is of the essence. Call Attorney911 today at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a free consultation. Our team, including associate attorney Lupe Peña—a former insurance defense attorney who knows how these agencies operate—is ready to help.

And if you’re an El Paso driver, be extra cautious on the roads. ICE’s expansion will bring more trucks to our highways, increasing the risk of accidents. If you’re involved in a crash, call us immediately. We’ll preserve the evidence, investigate the cause, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

“I just feel,” said Socorro Mayor Rudy Cruz Jr., “that they do these things in silence so that they don’t get opposition.”

Don’t let ICE operate in silence. Speak up. Get informed. And if you need legal help, call Attorney911. We’re here to fight for you.

Call Attorney911 Now:
📞 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
📞 (713) 528-9070
📧 ralph@atty911.com
🌐 https://attorney911.com

Hablamos Español. Llame a Lupe Peña al 1-888-ATTY-911.

Learn more about your rights:
– The Victim’s Guide to 18-Wheeler Accident Injuries
– Can I Sue for Being Hit by a Semi Truck?
– The Definitive Guide To Commercial Truck Accidents

Don’t wait. Your future depends on it.