After Police1 reported on a proposed California bill that would bar current U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees hired between Sept. 1, 2025, and Jan. 20, 2029, from working in law enforcement or public education, readers weighed in on whether prior federal service should ever disqualify someone from local police jobs. Their responses were swift — and overwhelmingly critical of the proposal.
| RELATED: What a recent public order response got right when a protest turned violent
Assembly Bill 1627 would prohibit ICE officers from serving in any California state or local police agency or working as teachers, administrators or staff in public schools. The bill’s authors say it is a response to what they describe as abuses of power and civil rights violations by federal immigration officers during recent immigration operations.
Here’s what Police1 readers had to say.
‘Guilty by association’
Many readers took issue with what they described as blanket disqualification based solely on past lawful employment, calling it discriminatory and unfair.
“Disqualification for any job because of previous lawful employment is discrimination. It is the same as refusing to hire someone due to skin color, gender, or religion.”
“Absolutely not! This bill seems unconstitutional at first glance as it seems to treat everyone who is employed by ICE, under the Trump Administration, as a convicted criminal. How do you justify this type of prohibition to the former ICE employee who worked 20 years for the agency and has a spotless record — guilty by association.”
Others emphasized that hiring decisions should be based on individual background and conduct, not agency affiliation.
“The background of a potential candidate in any of these fields should always be considered and evaluated, as you would and should evaluate the background of ANY candidate. Scrutinize prior service and make sure you are hiring a good fit, qualified for the local or state position.”
Legal and constitutional concerns
Several readers raised concerns about whether the bill would withstand legal scrutiny, pointing to discrimination protections and constitutional issues.
“Title VII has protections re. discrimination against persons of a particular class. Laws that discriminate should not be tolerated. Disparate impact and intentional discrimination will result in overturning laws that are enacted out of prejudice.”
“This has to be one of the most stupid, reactionary ‘laws’ ever proposed. It’s not going to be legally enforceable as wrongdoing has to be proven on a per-person basis, not for an entire industry.”
A retired law enforcement leader warned of broader implications if the bill were to pass.
“While the current proposed legislation is targeting DHS/ICE specifically, what is to keep the legislation from morphing to target ALL prior federal service of any type? The answer is: ‘Nothing.’”
Experience matters, readers say
Some commenters stressed that former federal officers can bring valuable experience to local agencies and should not be excluded outright.
“Why penalize a person for working at a department, earning a paycheck, hopefully learning skills along the way, that they can later use in the new job or career field?”
“Federal employees can bring their perspectives and experience which may be beneficial. Not everyone in ICE is involved with field operations.”
‘Judge individuals, not entire agencies’
Across the responses, a common theme emerged: readers overwhelmingly opposed blanket bans and favored individual evaluation.
“ICE did not write the immigration law — they only enforce it. Why not ban the people who wrote the law? This is ridiculous.”
“They should be judged on suitability based on qualifications, background and abilities. If they don’t meet the hiring standards, then don’t hire them.”
AB 1627 remains a proposal and would need to pass both chambers of the California Legislature and be signed by the governor to become law. The bill could be heard in committee as early as Feb. 26.
