Could a state strip federal agents of their right to drive while granting that privilege to unauthorized migrants? That’s the provocative question raised by Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California gubernatorial hopeful, with his latest policy proposal.

At the Empowerment Congress California Governor Forum held on Saturday, Swalwell announced his intention to revoke driver’s licenses from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers if elected. He also pledged to push local law enforcement to prosecute these federal agents on charges such as battery, false imprisonment, and murder. This stance comes against the backdrop of California’s policy, in place since 2015 after a 2013 law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown, which allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

The issue has sparked intense debate, especially given the contrasting policies at play. Swalwell’s plan would create a peculiar situation where federal officers enforcing immigration laws lose driving privileges, while those who entered the country without authorization retain them.

California’s Policy Clash on Licenses

Swalwell didn’t hold back at the forum, attended by other gubernatorial candidates like Rep. Katie Porter, as the New York Post notes. “They’re going to lose their immunity, they’re not gonna be able to drive,” he declared with a sharp edge.

His rhetoric goes further than just licenses. “There’s only one side of the ball to be on, on behalf of Californians when it comes to ICE, and it’s offense,” Swalwell insisted. This framing casts ICE as an opponent to state interests, likely appealing to progressive activists but troubling those who support federal law enforcement.

California’s history of granting driver’s licenses to unauthorized migrants, enacted two years after Brown’s 2013 legislation, adds irony to Swalwell’s proposal. How does a state justify equipping one group with legal privileges while targeting another for punitive action?

Broader Context of ICE Opposition

Swalwell’s push ties into a broader movement against ICE. Immigration activists have ramped up efforts to counter the agency’s enforcement actions, especially since President Trump returned to office.

One tragic event fueling unrest occurred in Minneapolis, where an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good after she reportedly drove her SUV toward him. Reports suggest the agent, identified as Ross, is unlikely to face prosecution.

This incident has become a flashpoint for critics of ICE’s tactics. It highlights the deep tensions over immigration enforcement in communities across the nation.

Legislative Moves Against ICE Immunity

Swalwell acted swiftly after Good’s death, introducing federal legislation just two days later alongside Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY). Known as the ICE OUT Act, the bill seeks to strip ICE officers of qualified immunity.

Let’s consider the implications of this move. Removing immunity could flood federal agents with lawsuits, potentially hampering their duties. While accountability is crucial, does this approach risk undermining border security?

Swalwell’s forum remarks suggest he’s not stopping at legislation. Directing local law enforcement to pursue serious charges against ICE officers raises questions about intent.

State vs. Federal Authority Tensions

The context of ICE’s intensified enforcement under the current administration adds weight to this debate. Protests and activist campaigns reflect deep divisions over immigration policy.

California’s driver’s license policy for unauthorized migrants aimed to boost road safety and integration. Pairing that with a plan to penalize federal agents, however, creates a strange contradiction.

What’s at stake transcends driving privileges—it’s about who enforces laws and how. Swalwell’s proposals might energize some voters but could widen the rift between state and federal authority. In a nation grappling with immigration challenges, this kind of brinkmanship might do more harm than good.