California’s gubernatorial race exposes ICE’s role in enforcing federal immigration policies amid state resistance

Indigenous frameworks view migration as a natural and sacred process tied to land, kinship, and survival, not a legal violation. The criminalisation of migration under ICE aligns with settler-colonial logics that seek to control Indigenous lands and labour. Indigenous communities in California, such as the Tongva and Ohlone, have long resisted state borders that disrupt their ancestral territories and kin networks. The omission of these perspectives erases the continuity of Indigenous resistance to colonial immigration enforcement.

California’s sanctuary policies emerged in the 1970s–80s as a response to federal immigration crackdowns targeting Latin American refugees fleeing U.S.-backed violence. The 1994 Proposition 187, which sought to deny public services to undocumented immigrants, was later struck down but set the stage for modern conflicts. Federal-local immigration enforcement tensions date back to the 19th century, when states like California resisted federal exclusion laws targeting Chinese immigrants. These historical precedents show that ICE’s role is not neutral but embedded in a long history of racialised exclusion.

In Mexico and Central America, migration is often framed as a survival strategy in the face of U.S.-imposed economic policies (e.g., NAFTA) and political destabilisation. African and Middle Eastern migrants in Europe face similar criminalisation under systems like Frontex, revealing a global pattern of border militarisation. Indigenous communities in the Andes and Amazon view migration as a collective right, not an individual crime, challenging Western legal frameworks. These cross-cultural comparisons highlight how U.S. immigration enforcement is part of a global system of border control that disproportionately harms racialised and Indigenous peoples.

Research shows that undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, with studies estimating their net economic contribution at $11.6 billion annually. ICE’s enforcement activities have been linked to increased fear among immigrant communities, leading to underreporting of crimes and reduced public health outcomes. The racialisation of immigration enforcement is well-documented, with Black and Latinx immigrants facing disproportionate detention and deportation. These findings contradict the narrative that ICE is a neutral enforcement agency.

Artists like Favianna Rodriguez and Dignicorps use murals and performances to challenge ICE’s dehumanisation of migrants, framing migration as an act of love and resistance. Spiritual traditions, including liberation theology in Latin America, view migration as a moral imperative in the face of injustice. Indigenous ceremonies, such as the Maya Day of the Dead, centre the journeys of ancestors and migrants, reframing borders as artificial constructs. These artistic and spiritual expressions offer alternative frameworks to the securitisation of migration.

If California were to fully defund ICE collaborations, it could set a precedent for other states to resist federal immigration enforcement, potentially leading to a patchwork of sanctuary policies. Future scenarios could include federal lawsuits challenging state non-cooperation, or federal funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions. Long-term, a shift toward decriminalising migration could reduce the profitability of detention centres, which are tied to private prison corporations like GEO Group and CoreCivic. These outcomes depend on sustained grassroots pressure and political realignment.

Undocumented immigrants, particularly women and LGBTQ+ individuals, face unique vulnerabilities under ICE enforcement, including sexual violence in detention and family separation. Grassroots organisations like the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance (CIYJA) and RAIZ have long advocated for sanctuary policies but are often excluded from mainstream narratives. Indigenous migrants, such as those from Oaxaca, face double discrimination in both U.S. and Mexican systems. Amplifying these voices reveals how immigration enforcement is a tool of racialised and gendered oppression.