What can the Federal govt do if CA refuses to implement immigration law?

[PastTense]

Has anyone seen any data as to what percent of deportations involve local law enforcement (as opposed say to immigration agents finding illegal immigrants within a few miles of the border or as a result of a workplace raid)? [I would guess the substantial majority of deportations don’t involve local law enforcement.]

[DinoR]

@Omar_Little

The Feds can bring their own enforcement, i.e. mobilizing the National Guard as a federal force.

Somebody just had to make me go and dig into the Insurrection Act…

The wiki page as an intro with a key quote and my bolding added:

§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

California is not in violation of any court decisions related to immigration law. In fact the policies in place in sanctuary areas seem to be entirely compliant with their responsibilities under Federal law. Digging down into that link to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service report from 2009 and we see:

Although IIRIRA § 642 prohibits states and localities from barring the transfer or maintenance of information regarding immigration status, it does not require entities to collect such information in the first place. Reportedly, some states and localities seeking to limit assistance to federal immigration authorities have barred agencies or officers from inquiring about persons’ immigration status, a practice sometimes described as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. Though this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and localities permit the free exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status, it results in specified agencies or officers lacking any information about persons’ immigration status that they could share with federal authorities

Read through the rest of that last link. It appears “sanctuary” policies are in compliance with federal law. The exemption from the Insurrection Act doesn’t seem to apply. Before Trump could legally use federal troops (Active or federalized NG) through this exemption he would need to get the current law changed, litigate it successfully, and have CA refuse to follow the court’s decision. There’s an alternate route of just changing federal law with respect to usage of federal troops. That might be easier and quicker but it involves selling the GOP and his supporters on taking the limits off for other states and other issues. Both routes take more than a simple and quick EO from Trump. Eisenhower could move quickly because all the other relevant pieces were in place before he made the decision.