CA Dems to Trump immigration agents: Don’t apply here

Should someone’s work in immigration enforcement during the Trump administration preclude them from having a job in California civil service?

Many California Democrats, alarmed by the administration’s aggressive immigration tactics, are prepared to take that step.

On a party line vote, legislators in the state Senate’s public safety committee passed a bill Tuesday that would disqualify people from becoming local or state police officers if they personally participated in federal immigration enforcement beginning on or after Jan. 20, 2025 — the date when President Donald Trump started his second term.

Former agents at, say, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection would be able to apply to be police officers only after at least 10 years have passed since leaving the agencies. That could be a setback for them because jobs in California law enforcement often pay better and offer more generous benefits than ones in the federal government.

During her testimony in support of the bill, Margo George of the California Public Defenders Association said that the bill is protective rather than punitive, and that police officers “wield extraordinary authority.”

• George: The bill “recognizes that individuals who have participated in or enabled unlawful enforcement and custodial practices — where cruelty and racial discrimination are not only tolerated but incentivized — should not occupy roles of public trust in California.”

California law enforcement groups oppose the measure, arguing that the bill does not specify for individuals who have a record of wrongdoing or improper conduct. Sen. Kelly Seyarto, a Murrieta Republican who cast the lone “no” vote, called the bill “ridiculous.”

• Seyarto: “It’s unfair to so many people that are good people that are working for an agency and they’re just doing their job. … It is pigeonholing people that have no reason for us to be pigeonholing them and keeping them from employment.”

The committee also raised concerns that the bill could violate the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge recently halted a new California law banning local and federal officers from wearing masks, and Menjivar’s proposal, the bill analysis warns, could face the same scrutiny.

Two similar bills also passed out of the Assembly’s public safety committee Tuesday: One, authored in part by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas of Salinas, would ban current immigration agents from California police jobs. Another would prohibit agents who worked at ICE from Sept. 1, 2025 to Jan. 20 2029 from being hired as police officers.

Speaking of public safety, CalMatters’ Joe Garcia dives into high-profile parole cases that have brought renewed attention to the state’s elderly parole program. 

David Allen Funston and Gregory Lee Vogelsang were each convicted of multiple sexual assaults against young children. Last year, California’s parole board found Funston and Vogelsang, who are now 67 and 57, respectively, suitable for parole based on their record of rehabilitation.

Their potential release has lawmakers from both parties racing to narrow parole eligibility for sex offenders. In March Republican lawmakers held a press event outside a parole board meeting to bring attention to Vogelsang’s case. Earlier this month, Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen cited Funston to advance her bill that would raise the parole eligibility standard for sex offenders to 65 years of age rather than the current 50. 

People released from prison through the parole board have a low recidivism rate, with less than 3% of them committing new crimes. But while Nguyen says “people can rehabilitate,” she reserves skepticism for some crimes. 

• Nguyen, Elk Grove Democrat: “When you’ve done things like molested little boys, ages 5 to 11, I just don’t know that you can change from that.”

Read more.

A deal to enroll more California students in the University of California’s top schools has some questioning whether the five-year agreement should continue as-is given its high price tag, writes CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn.

Legislators and UC officials brokered the plan in 2022, which stipulated that UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego would admit a total of 900 more in-state students a year in lieu of out-of-state students. Because non-residents students pay three times more than in-state students, the state would cover the loss by upping the university system’s budget.

Since then, roughly 3,000 more in-state students have enrolled at the three universities, costing taxpayers $276 million. It would have cost far less to not cut out-of-state enrollment while adding more spots for resident students.

With one more year to go and multibillion-dollar state deficits to contend with, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office is recommending the Legislature tweak the program to save about $36 million annually: Keep enrolling more California students but don’t limit the enrollment of non-resident students.

Read more.

The Trump administration has dropped its effort to change the way federal homelessness funds are distributed, handing California a legal win. Last year the administration tried to cap how much federal funds states could use toward permanent housing, setting off court battles with several states, including California, as well as Santa Clara County and San Francisco. Read more from CalMatters’ Marisa Kendall.