Data: ICE; Map: Jacque Schrag/AxiosEfforts to arrest and remove unauthorized immigrants appear most aggressive in five southern states with Democratic-leaning cities, while deeply red, rural states are seeing less activity, according to an Axios analysis.Why it matters: Our review of removal orders, pending deportation cases and agreements between immigration officials and local law enforcement agencies sheds light on where the Trump administration is dispatching resources to support its mass deportation plan.The analysis shows local law enforcement agencies in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia have been most cooperative with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in rounding up immigrants through deals known as 287 (g) agreements. There are 629 such agreements now in place across the country. About 43% of them are in Florida, followed by 14% in Texas and 5% in Georgia.Zoom in: The GOP-led state governments in Florida, Texas and Virginia also have made a point of pushing local agencies to partner with federal agents, leading to a series of high-profile, mass raids in those states.Recent raids in Florida by a coalition of agencies led to 1,120 arrests in an effort dubbed Operation Tidal Wave.Federal agents also have been especially active in New York, California and Illinois — blue states where some local and state laws prohibit authorities from assisting in immigration arrests.By the numbers: Of the 42,000 removals of immigrants ordered in March, nearly 50% involved people in Texas, California, New York, Virginia and Florida, according to an analysis of data from the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, had more immigrants (2,460) ordered removed than any other county in the U.S.Miami-Dade County, Fla., had the most residents with pending immigration court deportation cases (154,974) at the end of March, according to TRAC.Cook County, Ill. (Chicago) was second with 113,959 pending cases, followed by Los Angeles County, Calif., with 112,090.The big picture: The data analyzed by Axios and the locations of the agreements between federal and local authorities reflect a few simple truths about immigration enforcement across the U.S.There aren't nearly enough federal agents to meet President Trump's unprecedented deportation goal of deporting a million immigrants a year.In some places where the Trump administration faces a gap in resources, local law enforcement agencies are unable or unwilling to meet the feds' demands or expand beyond their usual enforcement duties.With the nation's borders essentially locked down, the administration has shifted much of its deportation operations to the nation's interior.State of play: Trump recently urged leaders of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), to have their members partner with ICE."We have a limited number of resources at ICE," border czar Tom Homan told Axios. The 287 (g) agreements are "a force multiplier and are going to help us achieve higher numbers."Though not as densely populated as other enforcement zones, rural conservative states such as Utah, North Dakota and South Dakota have seen explosive growth in immigrant populations in recent years.But many sheriffs, particularly in rural areas, don't have the resources to add immigration enforcement to their duties, NSA executive director and CEO Jonathan Thompson said.Thompson noted that even the Sheriffs' Association president, Canyon County (Idaho) Sheriff Kieran Donahue, wants to help Trump's immigration crackdown but faces obstacles to joining a 287(g) agreement."He, number one, doesn't have the manpower. Number two, he doesn't have the bed space. Number three, he doesn't have the funding to do it," Thompson said."That's very often the case across the country."Thompson added that some sheriffs are concerned that their departments could undermine their communities' trust by working with ICE."What I've heard them say is, if you're going to take somebody out of the community, do it in a way that demonstrates due process," he said.There is a cost to these arrests, Thompson said. "It costs the community because [an arrested immigrant] may be a contributing member ... to the fabric of the community."What they're saying: Homan, a former ICE director, rejects the notion that working with immigration officials can undermine community trust in local authorities. He cites the administration's focus on arresting criminals — though many of those detained by ICE haven't had criminal records."The immigrant community — even the illegal immigrant community — ... are pretty law-abiding, God-fearing, family people," Homan said. "They don't want predators in their neighborhood either." The other side: Immigration advocates are criticizing ICE's partnerships with local authorities, echoing the idea that the pacts harm communities and public safety."It means that communities are less likely to trust local police and report crime," said Nayna Gupta, policy director of the American Immigration Council.