Newsom’s California Democrats Want To Ban ICE Agents From Becoming Teachers And Cops

Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. But with all of the discussions surrounding immigration enforcement, I want to make sure when we write on any facet of this topic, we have a wider distribution.

⏱️ 7 min read

Political Retribution Masquerading As Public Safety

For years, Gavin Newsom and California’s progressive leadership have built their political identity around resistance to federal immigration enforcement. Sanctuary-state policies and refusal to cooperate with federal authorities have defined the state’s posture. That posture has now taken a troubling turn.

In the San Francisco Chronicle today, a headline reads, “California bill would ban ICE agents from jobs in teaching and policing.” Assembly Bill 1627, authored by Assemblymember Anamarie Ávila Farías, would disqualify applicants for a broad range of public school positions — including administrative roles extending through the University of California and California State University systems — as well as California peace officer jobs if they were employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement between September 1, 2025, and January 20, 2029. The bill also covers individuals who worked in the corrections departments of Alabama or Georgia during a recent period, citing Justice Department investigations into conditions there. None of this is tied to individual misconduct, disciplinary findings, or a proven civil-rights violation. It is based on prior employment alone.

That is not accountability. It is categorical exclusion.

ICE employees are not policymakers. They do not write immigration statutes or determine national enforcement priorities. They carry out duties assigned by elected leaders and agency supervisors. Yet Sacramento now proposes to treat lawful federal service as a permanent stain that follows a person into unrelated public employment.

Sanctuary Politics Comes Full Circle

California’s Democratic leaders often claim they are not opposed to law enforcement, only to specific federal policies. AB 1627 makes clear how thin that distinction has become. This proposal does not challenge a statute or seek judicial review of an executive action. It singles out people who carry out federal law.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington continue to debate funding levels, oversight, and limits on federal immigration enforcement. That debate belongs in the realm of policy. Lawmakers can argue about budgets, authorities, and priorities. This is the normal tug and pull of a deliberative process.

AB 1627 does none of that. It does not revise immigration law or create a narrowly tailored misconduct standard. It targets individuals who had no role in shaping national policy and no authority to decline lawful assignments. It converts a political disagreement into professional punishment.

From Defund The Police To Defund ICE

The trajectory is familiar. A few years ago, elements of the left advanced the slogan “defund the police,” a phrase that blurred the line between criticizing policies and discrediting the people who enforce them. The result was a collapse in morale, recruitment challenges, and growing public anxiety about safety.

A similar rhetorical shift has taken hold around immigration enforcement. If ICE is portrayed as inherently illegitimate, then those who work for the agency are treated not as civil servants but as symbols of a disliked policy. Once that framing takes root, career bans can be presented as a form of protection rather than punishment.

AB 1627 reflects that shift. The argument is no longer that the agency should be restructured or its authority narrowed. The argument is that service itself renders a person unfit for future public work, regardless of performance or conduct.

Scapegoats Instead Of Solutions

Progressive lawmakers are deeply critical of immigration enforcement under President Trump. That is a legitimate political position. They can press Congress to change the law, pursue litigation, or campaign for different national policies. I think they are wrong, but this is America. We can agree to disagree.

However, targeting individual employees is something different. It is easier to direct anger at federal agents than to grapple with the complex tradeoffs inherent in border and immigration policy. It also diverts attention from problems that Sacramento is directly responsible for addressing, including housing affordability, homelessness, and massive amounts of fraud.

As a conservative, I oppose excessive federal taxation and regulation. Yet I do not hold IRS employees personally responsible for enforcing tax laws passed by Congress, and I would not support barring them from other public roles because of policy disagreements. The dispute is with lawmakers and executives, not career staff.

A Government That Distrusts Service

The broader signal of this legislation is unmistakable. Public service is deemed honorable only when it aligns with prevailing political views. Service under the wrong administration becomes a professional liability.

That message extends beyond immigration enforcement. It tells anyone considering federal employment that future opportunities in California could depend less on conduct than on which president happened to be in office. That erodes the principle of a professional, nonpartisan civil service.

So, Does It Matter?

There is an irony that state leaders appear unwilling to acknowledge. If progressives want a reduced federal role in interior immigration enforcement, they might revisit the sanctuary policies that limit cooperation between state and federal authorities. Those policies ensure that when immigration law is enforced within California, it will be carried out primarily by federal officers because the state has chosen not to participate. Condemning those officers afterward is an exercise in selective indignation.

Yes, there have been tragic and controversial incidents. They involve a very small fraction of federal law enforcement personnel. The vast majority of ICE employees, like most public servants, report to work, follow the rules they are given, and perform their duties professionally. They do not set national policy. When a state sidelines them solely because they once served, it has moved beyond disagreement and into punishment.

As the leader of California Democrats, Gavin Newsom has encouraged the culture that leads to asinine legislation like this bill introduced by Ávila Farías. As Newsom’s Presidential ambitions take him around the country, he can talk about abolishing ICE, or the blacklisting of ICE employees. And see how far it gets him.