Gov. Gavin Newsom has repeatedly argued that California cooperates with federal authorities to deport violent criminals who are in the country illegally—an assertion that appears to conflict with the state’s sanctuary reputation.
In a recent interview with conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Newsom said that more than 10,000 criminals were deported during his tenure as governor. Shapiro followed up by questioning how that claim aligns with California’s sanctuary laws.
“This notion that federal law should be enforced by federal law enforcement agencies,” Newsom said. “That we should not assign local law enforcement to federal responsibilities and prioritizations.”
The exchange highlights a broader tension. California is often portrayed as hostile to federal immigration enforcement, yet it consistently ranks near the top nationally in ICE arrests, detentions, and deportations.
While these positions may seem contradictory, both are true—and together they reveal a structural paradox in how immigration enforcement operates.
Sanctuary State
Under SB 54, the California Values Act, state and local law enforcement agencies are largely prohibited from assisting federal authorities with civil (non-criminal) immigration enforcement, including honoring out-of-custody ICE detainers. Many local governments have adopted even stricter sanctuary ordinances, imposing internal penalties on employees who violate these rules.
The underlying principle is clear: immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and local police should not be used as immigration agents.
California reinforced this position with SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, which bars law enforcement officers from wearing masks while on duty. Although facially neutral, the law was widely viewed as targeting masked federal immigration agents conducting operations in local communities.
In principle, Newsom’s position reflects long-standing constitutional norms: federal and state law enforcement agencies should operate within their respective jurisdictions. In practice, however, the boundary is applied selectively.
California law enforcement agencies regularly cooperate with federal partners—including ICE, DHS, and Border Patrol—on criminal investigations and joint task forces targeting human trafficking, narcotics distribution, environmental crimes, financial fraud, and organized interstate offenses. Many of these cases involve undocumented immigrants, and such cooperation is routine.
According to publicly available data from January to October last year, California recorded 15,531 ICE arrests, ranking among the top three states nationwide, alongside Texas (36,240) and Florida (14,306).
The Post-Sentence Gap
The primary point of contention is not criminal enforcement, but what happens after incarcerated individuals complete their sentences.
When ICE places a detainer on an inmate in California’s prison system, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notifies ICE approximately two weeks before release. From that point forward, enforcement authority rests entirely with the federal government. California does not release inmates early, conceal their location, or prevent ICE from taking custody.
Over the past decade, California prisons held 22,395 inmates with ICE detainers. During that same period, ICE failed to take custody of 3,992 individuals—approximately 18 percent of deportation-eligible felons—who were released after completing their sentences. That figure exceeds the total prison population of several U.S. states.
Rather than acknowledging these gaps, ICE has increasingly attributed its aggressive and highly visible enforcement tactics to sanctuary policies. Minnesota offers a case in point. There, ICE conducted large-scale operations while arguing that local sanctuary laws required unilateral federal action.
ICE’s public messaging further complicates the picture. The agency regularly releases “worst of the worst” lists highlighting dangerous offenders, but DHS and ICE records show these and other lists often include individuals who were deported years earlier, remain incarcerated, or are deceased. Meanwhile, ICE has declined to publish comprehensive, current data detailing whom it arrests, detains, and deports.
California’s sanctuary policies do not prevent federal immigration enforcement. They restrict local participation in civil deportation efforts. When nearly 4,000 deportation-eligible individuals are released despite advance notice and exclusive federal authority, the central question is no longer whether states are cooperating, but whether the federal government is effectively executing its responsibilities.
Steve Smith is the Senior Fellow, Urban Studies, at the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank advocating free-market policy solutions.
