California's Ice Conundrum: Breaking Laws Or Human Rights?

California has been at the forefront of the immigration debate, with legislators attempting to limit deportation actions and protect immigrant communities from collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE. While California lawmakers have proposed bills to restrict ICE from accessing schools and workplaces without warrants and to prohibit law enforcement from transferring individuals to ICE, the state's ability to enforce these measures is limited due to federal jurisdiction. ICE has asserted that state laws cannot bind their actions as a federal agency, and they have the authority to manage a national network of detention facilities. This conflict between state and federal powers raises questions about the legality of California's efforts to shield its residents from ICE and the potential consequences for both immigrants and their families.

California sheriffs colluding with ICE

California sheriffs have been accused of colluding with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to advance an anti-immigrant agenda, undermining pro-immigrant state laws like the Values Act, or "sanctuary law". This collusion involves funneling people to federal immigration agents through shadow transfer systems.

According to records obtained by the ACLU of Northern California, sheriffs' departments throughout the Central Valley have devised schemes to bypass the Values Act and transfer community members to ICE custody from jail, even though they have been granted release through the legal system. For example, in 2019, Kern County sheriff's officials arrested a widow and primary breadwinner for her three children while she was working in the fields. She was falsely accused of stealing a bag of fruit and sent to jail. After paying bail, two ICE agents were waiting inside the jail to arrest her. She spent six months in immigration detention, separated from her children.

This case is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of collusion between Central Valley sheriffs' officials and ICE. Documents reveal that local law enforcement offices have created shadow transfer systems to avoid the public reporting required under the Values Act. One tactic involves "releasing" people into non-public areas of jails, where ICE agents are waiting, and the detainee cannot leave. Another method is holding people in jail for extra time to allow ICE agents to arrive and arrest them. By employing these tactics, local law enforcement agencies have underreported the number of transfers to ICE custody, with the true figure estimated to be nearly three times higher than officially reported.

To address this issue, legislators have proposed a law, Assembly Bill 937, or the VISION Act, which would explicitly prohibit law enforcement in California from transferring individuals to ICE custody. The VISION Act aims to protect vulnerable immigrant communities from the abuse of power by sheriffs and prevent the separation of families.

California's proposed Assembly Bill 937

The VISION Act would prohibit any state or local agency from arresting, detaining, transferring, or assisting in the arrest, confinement, interrogation, or deportation of an individual for immigration enforcement purposes. This includes notifying another agency about an individual's release date and time or disclosing personal information to another agency. The bill makes exceptions for certain situations, such as compliance with a criminal judicial warrant.

The proposed legislation also addresses the use of immigration status as a factor in denying probation, diversion programs, or rehabilitation opportunities. It aims to ensure that immigration status is not a barrier to accessing justice and rehabilitation services.

The VISION Act is a response to concerns about the treatment of immigrants and the collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE, which has resulted in the separation of families and trauma within immigrant communities. By passing this bill, California would reinforce its commitment to ending racial injustice and mass incarceration, as well as protecting the rights and well-being of its diverse residents.

The bill has been introduced by Assembly Members Carrillo, Kalra, and Santiago, with several other legislators signing on as co-authors, demonstrating broad support for these proposed changes.

ICE presence in California schools

In California, 93% of children with one or more undocumented parents are US citizens. The state's schools have long been safe havens for immigrant students. Under a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, public schools must enroll all students regardless of their immigration status and cannot charge tuition to students who are not legal residents. Since 2011, federal guidelines have discouraged agents from making immigration arrests at schools.

However, with the incoming Trump administration, there are concerns about the impact of ICE on schools and students. Trump has said he plans to eliminate the "sensitive locations" guidelines, and the Heritage Foundation has encouraged states to charge tuition to undocumented K-12 students. This could lead to the possible overturn of the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing access to school for undocumented students.

In response to these threats, California lawmakers have proposed bills to protect students and their families. AB 49 and SB 48 aim to keep federal agents from detaining undocumented students or their families on or near school property without a warrant. The bills would make it harder for agents to enter schools or daycare centers, but they cannot override federal law and stop arrests.

SB 48, introduced by Senator Lena Gonzalez, would establish a one-mile radius safe zone around schools and prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and their personnel from granting ICE officers access to campuses without a judicial warrant. It would also prohibit the sharing of any information about students, families, their households, and school employees with ICE officers.

AB 49, proposed by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, would require immigration agents to obtain written permission from the superintendent before coming onto school property and bar agents from being in rooms with children.

These bills send a powerful message that schools are safe places for immigrant students and their families. They also protect school attendance and funding, as fears of deportation could lead to a severe drop in attendance and a loss of funding for schools.

California's attempt to restrict immigration detention facilities

California has been at the forefront of resisting the criminalization of immigrant communities and trying to restrict immigration detention facilities. The state has attempted to challenge the arrest-to-deportation pipeline and end local and state support for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detention centers. In 2019, California passed a law, A.B. 32, that would ban for-profit firms from operating both state prisons and federal immigration detention centers within the state.

The law, written by then-state assemblyman and now Attorney General Rob Bonta, prohibits the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from signing or renewing contracts with private prison companies and prevents the state from holding people in for-profit prisons and immigration detention facilities from 2028 onwards. This legislation is significant as California had 10 privately-run facilities with almost 11,000 beds at the time it was enacted. However, the law has faced legal challenges, with Geo Group, a private prison firm, and the Trump administration filing federal lawsuits.

In 2020, a district judge upheld the law, acknowledging California's authority to ensure the health and welfare of inmates and detainees within its borders. However, this ruling was later reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the law violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause as it would require ICE to cease its detention operations in California and adopt a new approach. Despite this setback, California continues to push for reducing its reliance on private prison operators and eliminating for-profit firms from managing immigrant detention centers, citing concerns about the health and welfare of those detained.

In addition to legal challenges, California's attempts to restrict immigration detention facilities have also faced practical challenges. In 2024, ICE announced plans to add a new detention center in Northern California, alarming advocates and Democratic state lawmakers. While California tried to ban new federal immigrant detention centers during the first Trump administration, the court blocked this effort, ruling that the state was overstepping its authority on federal immigration enforcement. Despite the state's opposition, ICE's expansion plans proceeded, with the agency contracting with private prison operators to run its detention facilities.

California's resistance to immigrant detention facilities is part of a broader movement to challenge the criminalization of immigrant communities and redirect taxpayer dollars towards services that improve the lives of immigrants. Organizations like the California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC) have worked to disrupt the arrest-to-deportation pipeline and introduce legislation that protects immigrant communities from transfer to ICE custody. While California's efforts to restrict immigration detention facilities have faced legal and practical challenges, they reflect a commitment to protecting the rights and well-being of immigrants.

ICE agents at your door

If ICE agents arrive at your door, it is important to remain calm and remember your rights.

Firstly, you are not legally required to open the door or let the agents in unless they have a warrant. Ask them to identify themselves and why they are there. You can ask if they are alone or accompanied, and which agency they belong to. Regardless of their answer, do not open the door. Keep the door closed and ask if they have a court order. If they do, ask them to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window so you can inspect it.

There are two types of warrants: search and arrest. A search warrant allows police to enter the address listed and search the areas and items listed. An arrest warrant allows police to enter the home of the person listed if they believe the person is inside. A warrant of removal/deportation (ICE warrant) does not allow officers to enter a home without consent. Check the warrant for your name, address, and the signature of the sender. If the warrant is not signed by a judge, you may refuse entry. If the warrant is for a different address or person, you do not have to open the door.

Even if officers have a valid warrant and you let them in, you have the right to remain silent. You can say, "I plead the Fifth Amendment and choose to remain silent." If they force their way inside, do not resist. Remain calm and do not share any information. If you are arrested, continue to remain silent and remember that you have the right to speak to a lawyer.

If ICE agents arrive at your workplace, you can state that you do not consent to a search. ICE can enter areas open to the general public without permission, but this does not give them the authority to detain, question, or arrest anyone. Ask if they have a warrant. If they do not, calmly ask them to leave and advise your coworkers that they have the right to remain silent. If ICE has a search warrant, check that it has the correct address and only allow them to search the areas and items they are authorized to. Do not run or encourage anyone to escape or hide, as this can be a reason for arrest. Under California law, employers cannot turn over employee records or voluntarily allow immigration agents to enter non-public areas of the workplace without a judicial warrant.

Remember, ICE immigration officers cannot enter your home unless they have a court order. If you are undocumented and ICE agents knock on your door, you do not have to open it or talk to them. You can ask them what they want or for identification with the door closed. If they do not have a judge's order, they cannot enter your home. If they have a warrant signed by a judge, you must let them in. An arrest warrant issued by ICE gives them the right to arrest you, but not to enter your home without your consent.

It is important to know your rights and remain calm when dealing with ICE agents. You have the right to remain silent, even if the officer has a court order. You do not have to allow police or immigration agents to enter your home unless they have a specific order. In the case of an arrest warrant, the police can enter if they believe the suspect is inside. A removal order does not give agents the right to enter without the resident's consent. If an officer tries to force entry, this may be considered illegal. Make sure someone you trust knows where you are and can contact you in case of an emergency. Have the name and phone number of an immigration lawyer readily available.

Frequently asked questions