California ICE Cooperation Bill SB 1105 Puts Federal Law Enforcement at Risk And Taxpayers on the Hook
California lawmakers are at it again. On February 17, 2026, State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez introduced SB 1105, the so-called “Protect California Rights Act,” legislation that would further restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The bill, co-sponsored by the ACLU and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), represents yet another escalation in California’s ongoing defiance of federal immigration law—and it raises serious questions about the rule of law, public safety, and the proper role of government.
For those who believe in constitutional federalism, law and order, and fiscal responsibility, this bill should set off alarm bells. It’s not just about immigration policy. It’s about whether states can actively obstruct federal law enforcement, whether local officials will be held accountable for protecting their communities, and whether taxpayers should foot the bill for policies that make their neighborhoods less safe.
A Worrying Expansion of California’s Sanctuary State Policies
California has been a sanctuary state since 2017, when it passed SB 54 during President Trump’s first term. That law limited how much state and local law enforcement could cooperate with ICE in enforcing federal immigration law. The stated rationale was to build trust between immigrant communities and local police, ensuring that undocumented residents would report crimes without fear of deportation.
SB 1105 goes much further. According to Senator Pérez, the new bill would prevent local law enforcement from being “commandeered” to assist ICE during operations that involve racial profiling, the criminalization of protected speech, or the use of “unauthorized military weapons.” The bill also specifically aims to protect individuals who monitor or record ICE activities—a provision prompted by an incident in June 2025 when LAPD officers allegedly formed a perimeter around a factory during an ICE operation, preventing observers from documenting the enforcement action.
On its face, the bill sounds reasonable. Who wants racial profiling or violations of free speech? But the devil is in the details—and in the broader implications for law enforcement cooperation and community safety.
The Federal Authority Question: Who Enforces Immigration Law?
Immigration is fundamentally a federal responsibility. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Federal courts have consistently held that the federal government has plenary power over immigration policy. States cannot nullify federal law simply because they disagree with it.
Yet that’s precisely what California is attempting to do. By prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE—even in support roles—California is actively obstructing the execution of federal law. This isn’t about states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights; it’s about states interfering with federal officials performing their lawful duties.
The irony is rich. Many of the same progressives who champion federal supremacy when it comes to environmental regulations, civil rights enforcement, or health care mandates suddenly become passionate advocates of states’ rights when the federal government tries to enforce immigration law. This selective federalism undermines the constitutional order and sets a dangerous precedent.
What happens when a conservative state decides it won’t cooperate with federal enforcement of gun control laws or EPA regulations? The principle works both ways. If California can refuse to help enforce immigration law, can Texas refuse to enforce federal environmental law? This path leads to fragmentation and chaos, not principled federalism.
Law and Order: The Public Safety Consequences
Senator Pérez and her allies insist that preventing local police cooperation with ICE builds community trust and makes residents more likely to report crimes. The evidence, however, tells a different story.
Department of Homeland Security officials have noted that ICE agents increasingly encounter violence while performing their duties. “The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. When local law enforcement cannot provide even basic support—securing perimeters, ensuring officer safety, or maintaining order—federal agents are placed at greater risk.
More troubling, sanctuary policies can shield dangerous individuals from removal. While California’s 2017 sanctuary law included exceptions for violent criminals, SB 1105’s broader language about “racial profiling” and “protected speech” creates significant gray areas. Who decides what constitutes impermissible profiling? What happens when gang members or repeat offenders are caught up in ICE operations but local police are forbidden from assisting?
The burden falls on law-abiding residents. When dangerous individuals remain in communities because state policies prevent effective federal enforcement, it’s ordinary Californians—including legal immigrants and citizens from immigrant communities—who pay the price in reduced public safety.
Fiscal Accountability: Who Pays for Defiance?
California’s defiance of federal immigration law carries real fiscal costs, and taxpayers deserve to know what they’re paying for.
First, there’s the cost of litigation. California has spent millions defending its sanctuary policies in federal court. These legal battles drain resources that could fund schools, infrastructure, or public safety initiatives.
Second, there’s the cost of incarceration. When California prevents ICE from taking custody of individuals who would otherwise be deported, those individuals often remain in state and local custody—at taxpayer expense. County jails aren’t free, and every day someone spends in local custody instead of federal custody or removal is a day California taxpayers bear the cost.
Third, there’s the opportunity cost. Federal immigration enforcement can actually save states money by removing individuals who would otherwise cycle through state criminal justice and social service systems. By obstructing federal enforcement, California foregoes these savings and increases long-term fiscal burdens.
California lawmakers love to complain about the state’s budget deficits. Perhaps they should consider whether their immigration policies are part of the problem.
The “Commandeering” Canard
Senator Pérez frames her bill as preventing the federal government from “commandeering” local law enforcement. This language draws on constitutional doctrine established in Printz v. United States (1997), which held that Congress cannot compel state officials to enforce federal law.
But there’s a crucial distinction: No one is forcing California to enforce immigration law. ICE isn’t commandeering California officials; it’s simply asking for voluntary cooperation and support. California is free to decline that cooperation—but it’s not free to actively obstruct federal operations.
That’s the real concern with SB 1105. The bill doesn’t just allow local police to refrain from immigration enforcement; it actively prevents them from providing even minimal assistance during federal operations. That crosses the line from non-cooperation to obstruction.
Imagine if Los Angeles experienced a major bank robbery and the FBI asked LAPD to secure a perimeter while federal agents made arrests. Could California pass a law forbidding LAPD from helping because some legislators disagreed with federal banking regulations? Of course not. The same principle should apply to immigration enforcement.
Where Do We Go From Here?
California’s relentless expansion of sanctuary policies reflects a fundamental disagreement about the rule of law. Do we live in a nation where federal law is enforced uniformly, or do we live in a patchwork where states pick and choose which laws they’ll respect?
For conservatives who value law and order, limited government, and fiscal responsibility, the answer is clear. States have legitimate roles in our federal system, but actively obstructing federal law enforcement isn’t one of them. SB 1105 undermines federal authority, jeopardizes public safety, and wastes taxpayer resources—all in service of an ideological agenda that prioritizes illegal immigration over the safety and interests of law-abiding residents.
The bill also raises troubling questions about selective enforcement of constitutional rights. Senator Pérez says her bill protects free speech rights of those who monitor ICE operations. But what about the rights of American citizens and legal residents who want their laws enforced? What about the rights of communities devastated by gang violence and drug trafficking, problems that effective immigration enforcement can help address? Those rights matter too.
California can disagree with federal immigration policy. It can advocate for changes to federal law. It can even decline to use state resources for federal priorities. But it cannot—and should not—actively prevent federal officials from doing their jobs.
Call to Action: Make Your Voice Heard
SB 1105 is currently working its way through the California Legislature. If you’re concerned about the rule of law, public safety, and fiscal responsibility, now is the time to speak up.
Contact your state legislators. Let them know that California residents deserve communities where federal law is respected and where law enforcement agencies can cooperate to keep everyone safe.
Stay informed. Follow the progress of SB 1105 and other immigration-related bills in the state legislature. Knowledge is the first step toward accountability.
Share this article. Help others understand what’s really at stake in California’s ongoing immigration battles. The debate isn’t just about compassion versus enforcement—it’s about constitutional governance, public safety, and who pays the price when states put ideology ahead of law.
California’s sanctuary policies have consequences. It’s time for lawmakers to be honest about those consequences—and for voters to hold them accountable.
