Tom Steyer has staked out an extreme position in the California governor’s race with a recent proposal that would empower state officials to jail federal immigration agents, and the reaction is loud and split. This article examines his plan, the language he used, and the potential constitutional and political fallout from pushing a state-versus-federal confrontation over ICE enforcement.
The California race shifted when a leading contender left the field, and Steyer immediately climbed in early polls. He followed that surge with a written statement titled “How California Can Put ICE in Jail” and an accompanying that lays out measures far beyond typical sanctuary policies.
Steyer’s proposal is not merely noncooperation; it envisions state action to arrest and imprison federal immigration officers and DHS leadership. That sort of proposal raises immediate questions about constitutional authority, federal supremacy, and what a state-level enforcement campaign against federal agents would look like in practice.
Fox News’ Bill Melugin summarized several elements Steyer touted, capturing the tone and scope of the plan before the full debate unfolded. Those bullet points include giving the California attorney general authority to imprison ICE agents, taxpayer-funded legal support for undocumented immigrants, and a pledge to ignore certain federal legal standards in favor of state protections.
– Give CA AG power to imprison ICE agents & their leadership.
– Taxpayer funded legal representation & support for illegal aliens.
– Ignore a SCOTUS ruling that allows ICE to utilize to use race, language, job, and location to contribute to “reasonable suspicion” for immigration arrests, and instead, “California should take matters into our own hands and extend legal protections to its residents, despite the federal governments failure.”
“This is about our right as a state to protect our residents,” Steyer says.
Steyer’s own words in the piece are sharp and uncompromising, framing ICE as a violent organization that must be met with forceful state response. He wrote, “ICE must be abolished. ICE is acting like a criminal organization, carrying out indiscriminate racial profiling and using violence, intimidation, terrorism, and the murder of Americans to extend Trump’s rule by fear.”
I’ve made it clear: ICE must be abolished. ICE is acting like a criminal organization, carrying out indiscriminate racial profiling and using violence, intimidation, terrorism, and the murder of Americans to extend Trump’s rule by fear.
It’s not enough for Democrats to simply engage in rhetoric, and “stand” against ICE or Trump. California must build a system that fights fire with fire. To stop this authoritarian takeover, we must counter ICE head-on, and go after both their agents on the streets and their leadership within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
That rhetoric raises obvious alarm bells for anyone who reads the Constitution with care. Article VI makes federal law supreme where valid federal authority exists, and federal immigration enforcement is squarely within that realm. A state law or program designed to arrest federal officers would set up an instant and severe legal clash.
Beyond legal theory, there are practical and safety concerns. If a state publicly threatens to detain federal agents carrying out orders under federal statutes, that could provoke aggressive federal responses, increase the risk of violent confrontations on the streets, and escalate into larger intergovernmental conflict.
Political fallout is also immediate. Advocating to jail federal officers is a radical stance that even many on the left may view as reckless. It shifts the debate from pragmatic policy disagreements over enforcement and due process to a clash over the fundamentals of federalism and the rule of law.
California leaders who support robust immigrant protections will have to decide whether they back proposals that deliberately seek to nullify federal functions. That choice forces a tension between protecting residents and upholding the constitutional structure that governs state-federal relations.
Whatever one thinks of ICE or immigration policy, the rhetoric Steyer used and the specific measures he outlined will focus attention on how far a governor could push state authority. That question matters for legal scholars, voters, and anyone watching whether a campaign promise would be an aspirational statement or a roadmap to direct confrontation.
Editor’s Note: Democrats are fanning the flames and raising the rhetoric by comparing ICE to the Gestapo, fascists, and secret police.
Add comment