Gang Call to Arms: California Official's Shocking Response to ICE Raids

Paul Riverbank, 6/27/2025The escalating clash between ICE operations and sanctuary city policies has reached a critical juncture, with recent incidents in Los Angeles and New York highlighting the precarious balance between federal enforcement mandates and local governance. This tension threatens to redefine federal-municipal relationships in immigration enforcement.

The Brewing Storm: Immigration Enforcement Collides with Local Authority

A series of dramatic confrontations between federal immigration agents and local authorities this past week has exposed the deepening fault lines in America's immigration enforcement landscape. I've spent the last few days speaking with officials on both sides of this increasingly volatile situation, and what's emerging is far more complex than simple jurisdictional disagreement.

Take what happened in Los Angeles. What began as a standard ICE operation spiraled into chaos when local residents, mistaking plain-clothes agents for kidnappers, called 911. The LAPD's response highlighted the awkward dance that local law enforcement must perform in sanctuary cities – showing up to maintain public safety while carefully avoiding any appearance of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

But it's what happened next that really caught my attention. Cudahy Vice Mayor Cynthia Gonzalez's inflammatory social media post – seemingly calling for gang intervention against ICE operations – crossed a line that left even sanctuary city advocates uncomfortable. Her words (which she's since deleted) referenced specific street gangs, asking "where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles?" It's the kind of rhetoric that threatens to undermine legitimate policy debates about immigration enforcement.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Democratic lawmakers aren't sitting idle. State Sen. Sasha Renee Perez's "No Vigilantes Act" represents a direct challenge to certain ICE tactical approaches, particularly the use of masked agents in public spaces. Having covered immigration policy for over two decades, I can't recall a time when state-federal tensions were quite this raw.

The situation reminds me of conversations I had with former ICE director Tom Homan last year. He warned – and I'm seeing his predictions play out now – that there would be serious legal consequences for those interfering with federal operations. Yet local officials keep pushing back, as we saw in New York with Brad Lander's arrest and Governor Hochul's subsequent intervention.

Here's what's often missed in these heated exchanges: beneath the political theater lies a fundamental question about federalism and local autonomy. Can cities effectively opt out of federal immigration enforcement? Should they? The answers aren't as clear-cut as either side claims.

From my conversations with law enforcement veterans, there's a growing recognition that the current situation is untenable. Some suggest that structured communication protocols between federal and local authorities might help prevent these public confrontations. But in today's polarized climate, even such basic coordination faces significant political hurdles.

The truth is, we're watching the painful evolution of American immigration enforcement in real time. And from where I sit, neither side seems ready to blink.

The Brewing Storm: Immigration Enforcement Collides with Local AuthorityA series of dramatic confrontations between federal immigration agents and local authorities this past week has exposed the deepening fault lines in America's immigration enforcement landscape. I've spent the last few days speaking with officials on both sides of this increasingly volatile situation, and what's emerging is far more complex than simple jurisdictional disagreement.Take what happened in Los Angeles. What began as a standard ICE operation spiraled into chaos when local residents, mistaking plain-clothes agents for kidnappers, called 911. The LAPD's response highlighted the awkward dance that local law enforcement must perform in sanctuary cities – showing up to maintain public safety while carefully avoiding any appearance of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.But it's what happened next that really caught my attention. Cudahy Vice Mayor Cynthia Gonzalez's inflammatory social media post – seemingly calling for gang intervention against ICE operations – crossed a line that left even sanctuary city advocates uncomfortable. Her words (which she's since deleted) referenced specific street gangs, asking "where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles?" It's the kind of rhetoric that threatens to undermine legitimate policy debates about immigration enforcement.Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Democratic lawmakers aren't sitting idle. State Sen. Sasha Renee Perez's "No Vigilantes Act" represents a direct challenge to certain ICE tactical approaches, particularly the use of masked agents in public spaces. Having covered immigration policy for over two decades, I can't recall a time when state-federal tensions were quite this raw.The situation reminds me of conversations I had with former ICE director Tom Homan last year. He warned – and I'm seeing his predictions play out now – that there would be serious legal consequences for those interfering with federal operations. Yet local officials keep pushing back, as we saw in New York with Brad Lander's arrest and Governor Hochul's subsequent intervention.Here's what's often missed in these heated exchanges: beneath the political theater lies a fundamental question about federalism and local autonomy. Can cities effectively opt out of federal immigration enforcement? Should they? The answers aren't as clear-cut as either side claims.From my conversations with law enforcement veterans, there's a growing recognition that the current situation is untenable. Some suggest that structured communication protocols between federal and local authorities might help prevent these public confrontations. But in today's polarized climate, even such basic coordination faces significant political hurdles.The truth is, we're watching the painful evolution of American immigration enforcement in real time. And from where I sit, neither side seems ready to blink.