Escondido maintains ICE firing range contract despite fierce public opposition

ESCONDIDO, Calif. — The Escondido City Council has voted to maintain a contract allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to use the local police department’s shooting range, despite an outcry from community members.

The decision followed a five-hour public meeting attended by approximately 200 protesters. Opponents of the deal characterized ICE as a threat to the public and labeled the agency's activities "state-sponsored terrorism."

Under the $22,500 annual agreement, up to 200 ICE agents are permitted to utilize the facility for 20 days per year. Police Chief Ken Plunkett said the department has leased the range to ICE since 2013, though the parties did not sign a formal contract until 2024.

Councilmember Consuelo Martinez proposed terminating the contract, but the motion failed to gain support from other council members. Supporters of the agreement argued that the training makes agents safer in the field.

Other council members expressed concern that canceling the contract could provoke the Trump administration. They suggested such a move might lead to an increase in local immigration raids.

The controversy comes as federal data shows a 1,500% spike in immigration arrests in the San Diego area between May and October of last year.

The Escondido City Council’s recent decision has laid bare a profound political schism within California’s immigrant-heavy municipalities. What appears on the surface to be a routine facility lease has instead emerged as a high-stakes litmus test for local cooperation with federal immigration policy.

The debate is defined by two sharply divergent philosophies. Proponents of the deal have adopted a pragmatic stance, contending that enhanced training facilities foster greater professionalism among federal agents and mitigate the risk of operational tragedies. This position is also underpinned by a calculated fear of federal retribution—a tangible concern for local governments operating within a highly polarized national political landscape.

Conversely, a coalition of activists and elected officials argues that any institutional alignment with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) constitutes complicity, inevitably eroding public trust and endangering vulnerable residents. This camp emphasizes a lopsided cost-benefit analysis: the $22,500 in annual revenue is viewed as negligible compared to the significant social cost of alienating the community.

The intervention of 33 elected officials from neighboring jurisdictions underscores that this is not merely a localized dispute, but rather a regional flashpoint regarding the role of local government in shielding immigrant populations. Ultimately, the controversy highlights a fundamental disagreement over the nature of federal enforcement: whether ICE’s primary challenges stem from a lack of tactical proficiency or a deeper, systemic crisis in agency culture and policy.

For the Vietnamese-American community throughout San Diego and Southern California, any indication that local government maintains ties with ICE—even indirectly—sparks profound anxiety. Many of our families navigate intricate immigration realities, often living in mixed-status households where some members may be undocumented or waiting years for F2B visas. When the line between local police and federal immigration enforcement blurs, it intensifies the looming fear of raids and deportations. This climate of distrust discourages residents from reporting crimes or seeking help from public agencies, which ultimately undermines the collective safety of the neighborhoods where our phở restaurants and nail salons thrive. For a diaspora with a collective memory of fleeing an oppressive regime, the sight of armed federal agents operating in the heart of Little Saigon does more than threaten legal status; it reopens old wounds and creates a pervasive sense of insecurity.