A triple homicide is committed, allegedly by someone the system had multiple opportunities to remove but chose not to, due to deliberate noncooperation by California. Families are shattered. The community is mourning. We have every right to call this simply outrageous.

This isn’t misfortune. It’s policy malpractice with a body count. 

And it perfectly embodies the indefensible standoff between California’s feel-good sanctuary model and actual federal immigration law.

As of early this year, DHS reported that sanctuary jurisdictions in California had released over 4,500 individuals with active ICE detainers since Jan. 20, 2025 –– including people with convictions or charges for homicide, sexual offenses, assault, drug trafficking, and weapons crimes.

Joaquin Escoto, accused of slaying an infant and two women in Modesto, fits the profile of a repeat offender the federal government sought to remove.

California’s excuse for defying the feds? “Building trust” and “not turning cops into immigration agents.” 

The practical result? Shielding repeat offenders like Escoto, who had already been thrown out of the country three times. 

The law in California makes enforcement harder by design, when applied to repeat deportees with criminal records. 

Honoring a simple ICE notification request after a DUI arrest for someone already removed from this country three times is not “mass deportation” or family separation theater.

It is basic coordination of public safety between sovereign levels of government on a matter of federal authority.

And California is not being obliged to enforce federal law. On the contrary, the state actively obstructs it and withholds routine public-safety information. 

There is no moral or practical excuse for shielding someone like Escoto from federal removal after repeated re-entries and criminal activity. 

Shouting “protect immigrants” loses credibility when it shields individuals who prey on vulnerable people, often in those same immigrant communities.

At rallies, mantras like “F—k ICE”, and “ICE out of California” chants from activists, unions, teachers, students, and politicians, reflect an ideological absolutism that treats all enforcement as illegitimate, and views any cooperation with ICE as moral treason.

This mindset has real victims, clearly.

The Trump administration calls this what it is: a deliberate protection racket for criminal aliens at the expense of American lives.

California’s response? More laws, to tie ICE’s hands tighter.

Ditto in Los Angeles, where on Saturday, Councilwoman and mayoral candidate Nithya Raman boasted on X of her plan “to make LA the strongest sanctuary city in the country.”

Under the Supremacy Clause, immigration is squarely the federal government’s turf. Congress has the power here, and statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1373 exist precisely to stop states from blocking local cops from talking to ICE.

---

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

Yet California’s sanctuary laws turn local jails into revolving doors.

The state prohibits the honoring of ICE detainers without a judicial warrant, blocks routine notifications, and forbids the use of any state resources to help remove people the feds want gone.

California has, through a supermajority Democratic Legislature and screw-loose Gov. Gavin Newsom, weaponized sanctuary protection into active sabotage.

And criminals, instead of facing deportation, are set free in California to offend again.

Federal supremacy on immigration meets state-level nullification.

The Trump administration’s funding pressures and enforcement surges are the predictable backlash. And courts keep slapping down federal actions, so the stalemate continues, with victims piling up.

Defenders still trot out the usual, tired script: “Overall immigrant crime is low,” “these cases are rare,” “due process matters.” Tell that to the surviving child of this triple murder.

When sanctuary policy deliberately blocks handoffs to the feds of known repeat offenders, you don’t get to wave it away as “unfortunate coincidence.” 

There is no excuse. 

There is no serious defense. 

This isn’t “protecting immigrants.” It’s protecting criminals like Escoto from consequences and accountability under federal law.

This is sanctuary extremism –– not compassionate governance, but performative ideology with lethal consequences.

While California’s political and activist classes pat themselves on the back for sticking it to ICE, hard-working Americans watch families get destroyed and wonder why basic public safety keeps losing to open-border theater.

Richie Greenberg is a political commentator based in San Francisco.