L.A. Mayor’s Latest Effort to ‘Thwart ICE’ Just Got Put On Notice By the DOJ
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) signed Executive Directive 17 in February, directing city departments to prevent federal immigration agents from using city-owned or controlled property for staging areas, processing locations, or bases of operation. The directive also requires the posting of signs stating that such property may only be used for its intended city purpose and not for immigration enforcement activities. Physical barriers, such as locked gates and doors, are to be used where feasible to limit access to non-public portions of city facilities.
According to local reports, more than 450 signs have been installed at parks, libraries, parking lots, and transit hubs, including MacArthur Park, Lafayette Park, and the Los Angeles Zoo. The estimated cost to taxpayers is at least $250,000. Bass stated that the directive is intended to set clear boundaries and prevent federal agents from using neighborhoods as staging grounds for operations that she described as causing fear and intimidation.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli responded that the signs have no legal weight, force, or effect on federal law enforcement activities. He stated that federal agents will go anywhere necessary to enforce federal law, including city property, and described the directive as “silly.” Essayli emphasized that the signs are null and void from the perspective of federal enforcement.
The directive is part of broader efforts by some Democratic-led cities and states to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Bass had previously confronted ICE and Border Patrol agents at MacArthur Park during a major enforcement action last summer, telling them to leave after their operations were completed.
May you like
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have not issued formal statements on the specific directive beyond Essayli’s comments. The situation highlights ongoing tensions between federal immigration authorities and certain local governments regarding the scope of enforcement operations and the use of public property. Legal experts note that federal law generally preempts conflicting local directives in matters of immigration enforcement. No court challenge to the directive has been reported at this time.
The developments reflect partisan divisions over immigration policy and the balance between federal authority and local governance. Both sides continue to debate the appropriate role of local officials in federal enforcement actions. The directive remains in effect as implemented by the city.
