Alameda County ICE-Free Zones: Protecting Immigrants or Shielding Criminals?
Defiance in the Name of Sanctuary
In a move that prioritizes political ideology over the rule of law, Alameda County supervisors are rushing to establish “ICE-free zones” across all county-owned properties—effectively declaring war on federal immigration enforcement. On January 16, 2026, the county’s “Together for All” committee approved sweeping proposals to ban Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from county buildings, parking lots, and facilities, with the full Board of Supervisors set to vote on January 27.
Supervisors Nikki Fortunato Bas and Elisa Márquez championed these measures with emotional appeals about protecting vulnerable communities. But beneath the compassionate rhetoric lies a troubling reality: local officials are deliberately obstructing federal law enforcement officers from doing their jobs—jobs that include apprehending criminal aliens, sex offenders, and individuals who have already received due process through immigration courts.
This isn’t about compassion. It’s about political grandstanding that undermines the rule of law, endangers public safety, and wastes taxpayer dollars on virtue signaling instead of addressing the real problems facing Alameda County residents.
The Constitutional Crisis: Who Enforces Immigration Law?
The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is unambiguous: federal law takes precedence over conflicting state or local measures. Immigration enforcement is explicitly a federal responsibility, established by Congress and executed by agencies like ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
Alameda County’s proposal doesn’t just refuse cooperation with federal authorities—it actively impedes them. The plan includes physical barriers, restrictive signage, and protocols designed to alert individuals before ICE agents can perform their lawful duties. This goes far beyond the “sanctuary” policies that courts have generally upheld, which simply decline to use local resources for federal immigration enforcement.
When local governments erect barriers—literal and figurative—against federal law enforcement, they’re not exercising legitimate local authority. They’re engaging in nullification, the same discredited doctrine that states once used to resist federal civil rights enforcement. The principle matters: if Alameda County can obstruct ICE, what’s to stop other jurisdictions from blocking FBI agents, DEA officers, or ATF investigators?
The Public Safety Smokescreen
Proponents of ICE-free zones claim these policies make communities safer by encouraging immigrants to report crimes without fear. The evidence tells a different story.
According to ICE data, as of November 30, 2025, approximately 73.6% of individuals in immigration detention have no criminal conviction. Sanctuary advocates cite this statistic as proof that ICE targets innocent people. But this figure is deliberately misleading—it conflates people awaiting trial with those who have committed crimes but haven’t yet been convicted, and it ignores that illegal entry itself is a violation of federal law.
More importantly, the 26.4% who do have criminal convictions represent thousands of individuals convicted of serious crimes. ICE’s year-end 2025 report documented arrests of “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” including child predators, violent offenders, and gang members. These are not people seeking a better life—they’re criminals who have already demonstrated disregard for American laws.
Alameda County’s own Public Defender Brendon Woods revealed that since September 2025, at least six of his clients have been arrested by ICE inside or near courthouses. Woods characterized this as a “state of emergency.” But a more relevant question is: Why were these individuals—already involved in the criminal justice system—still in the country? Were they violent offenders? Drug traffickers? The public deserves answers, not emotional appeals.
The reality is that sanctuary policies don’t make communities safer. They make them safer for criminals who happen to be in the country illegally. Research showing no crime increase in sanctuary cities often fails to account for crimes committed by individuals who should have been deported after previous offenses but were shielded by non-cooperation policies.
The Fiscal Irresponsibility of Symbolic Politics
While Alameda County’s proposal claims “nominal costs related to signage,” the true fiscal impact extends far beyond a few signs. The county plans to implement:
- Physical barriers at county facilities
- Staff training programs across multiple departments
- Coordination with the Alameda County Immigration Legal Education Partnership
- Development and maintenance of a county-wide response plan
- Legal defense costs when federal authorities inevitably challenge these restrictions
County documents acknowledge these expenses but provide no detailed budget analysis. This is par for the course for progressive California counties that consistently prioritize symbolic gestures over fiscal accountability.
Meanwhile, Alameda County faces real challenges that deserve funding: crumbling infrastructure, homelessness, rising property crime, and struggling small businesses. The county’s January 4, 2026 flooding exposed infrastructure failures that cost residents dearly. Yet supervisors are dedicating time, energy, and taxpayer dollars to protecting federal immigration violators rather than fixing roads, bridges, and drainage systems.
Under the new federal budget, ICE received an additional $75 billion over four years—a more than 300% increase in enforcement capacity. Supervisor Bas cited this figure as justification for urgent action. But the appropriate response to increased federal enforcement isn’t obstruction—it’s cooperation with lawful authorities and focus on local priorities.
Due Process Theater: The Minneapolis Myth
Alameda County officials repeatedly invoked the January 2026 shooting of Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis as justification for their proposals. “Since the Minneapolis killing—more than ever—it is incredibly dangerous for people to enter the immigration system,” Supervisor Bas declared.
This narrative omits critical context. According to multiple reports, Good was driving away from ICE agents during an enforcement operation when she was shot. While any loss of life is tragic, federal officials including Vice President JD Vance and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended Ross’s actions within the context of a dangerous enforcement situation.
Alameda County’s Public Defender Woods went further, claiming “we are in a state of emergency” and describing ICE officers “snatching people off the street” with “weapons and masks and unmarked vehicles.” This inflammatory language paints federal law enforcement as jackbooted thugs rather than officers executing lawful deportation orders issued by immigration judges.
The truth is that ICE agents operate under strict protocols, judicial oversight, and internal accountability measures. Immigration proceedings include multiple layers of due process: initial hearings, appeals, bond determinations, and judicial review. By the time ICE executes a removal order, individuals have typically exhausted their legal options. They’re not being “snatched”—they’re being lawfully deported after receiving more due process than criminal defendants get in many cases.
The Slippery Slope of Selective Law Enforcement
Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez proudly announced that her department has a “zero-tolerance policy” on ICE cooperation, refusing civil detainers and declining to hold individuals for ICE pickup. She’s made it “very clear” that deputies “will not cooperate with ICE on civil immigration matters.”
This selective enforcement philosophy is deeply troubling. Sheriff Sanchez took an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. Immigration law is federal law. When local officials pick and choose which federal laws to honor, they undermine the entire legal system.
Consider the precedent: If Alameda County can refuse to cooperate with ICE because officials disagree with federal immigration policy, can conservative counties refuse to cooperate with ATF agents enforcing federal gun laws they consider unconstitutional? Can they block EPA inspectors enforcing environmental regulations they view as federal overreach?
The answer should be no in both cases. We’re a nation of laws, not a patchwork of jurisdictions that enforce only the laws they politically agree with.
What Alameda County Should Do Instead
Alameda County faces legitimate challenges that deserve the Board of Supervisors’ attention:
Focus on Local Crime: Rather than protecting criminal aliens from federal authorities, the county should focus on reducing the property crime, theft, and quality-of-life offenses that plague residents. The January 22 “Door Kick Challenge” warning from Alameda police and the ongoing cannabis enforcement issues demonstrate real public safety concerns that don’t require fighting the federal government.
Infrastructure Investment: The January 2026 flooding exposed serious infrastructure deficiencies. County resources should fund drainage improvements, road repairs, and maintenance—not legal battles with federal immigration authorities.
Cooperation, Not Obstruction: Counties can maintain their values while respecting federal authority. Rather than creating “ICE-free zones,” Alameda County could establish clear protocols for when and how federal agents access county facilities—ensuring both public safety and respect for federal law enforcement.
Transparency and Accountability: If county officials believe ICE is overreaching, they should document specific instances and work through proper legal channels. Blanket obstruction policies prevent legitimate oversight while shielding potentially dangerous individuals.
The Bigger Picture: Law and Order Matters
The Alameda County ICE-free zones proposal represents everything wrong with progressive governance: emotional appeals trumping legal analysis, virtue signaling over problem-solving, and political theater instead of fiscal responsibility.
Immigration is a federal responsibility for good reason. A nation cannot maintain sovereignty without secure borders and consistent enforcement of immigration law. When local jurisdictions obstruct federal immigration enforcement, they’re not protecting vulnerable communities—they’re declaring that some people are above the law based on their immigration status.
This isn’t compassion. It’s chaos.
American citizens who follow the rules, pay their taxes, and respect the law deserve better than local officials who spend their time and money protecting individuals who violated immigration law. Legal immigrants who waited years and spent thousands of dollars to enter the country properly deserve better than a system that rewards those who cut the line.
Conclusion: A Choice Between Law and Lawlessness
On January 27, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to establish ICE-free zones across county property. This vote represents a fundamental choice: Will Alameda County be a place where federal law is respected and public safety is paramount, or will it become a jurisdiction where political ideology determines which laws get enforced?
The Constitution is clear. The law is clear. What remains to be seen is whether Alameda County supervisors care more about upholding their oaths of office or scoring political points with their progressive base.
Residents of Alameda County deserve leaders who fix roads, reduce crime, and govern responsibly—not politicians who pick fights with federal law enforcement while infrastructure crumbles and public safety deteriorates.
Call to Action
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors needs to hear from you. If you’re a county resident concerned about this proposal, contact your supervisor before the January 27 vote. Attend the public meeting and make your voice heard.
Share this article with friends, family, and neighbors who care about the rule of law, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. The mainstream media won’t tell this side of the story—but we will.
Stay informed about how your local government spends your tax dollars and whether your elected officials prioritize political theater over practical problem-solving. Subscribe to The Town Hall News for coverage that respects your intelligence and your values.
The rule of law matters. Federal authority matters. And your voice matters. Don’t let Alameda County supervisors turn your community into a sanctuary for lawlessness.
