Printer-friendly version
County approves tough migrant protections, but Sheriff says state laws should prevail; El Cajon Council weighs city’s legal and moral obligations
Update: The letter sent by Mayor Wells to the Attorney General is now available here.The letter states that the City Council is considering a resolution declaring the city's intent to "comply with federal immigration laws and assist federal authorities in their enforcement efforts to the maximum extent possible."
By Miriam Raftery
Photos: Right, El Cajon Mayor Wells calls sanctuary policies "stupid and dangerous." He has voiced support for Trump's mass deportation policies but wants clarification on the city's legal obligations.
Left, Councilman Gary Kendrick does not support having police "dragging children out of schools or churches" or aiding in deportation of residents with no criminal records,only those guilty of serious crimes.
December 11, 2024 (San Diego) – Yesterday, San Diego County Supervisors and El Cajon’s City Council held discussions that could determine fates of many immigrant residents—and set the stage for showdowns among federal, state and local authorities. San Diego County has an estimated 169,000 undocumented residents, according to the Migration Policy Institute, based on 2019 data.
The incoming Trump administration has announced plans to deport millions of immigrants nationwide—and demands that local authorities cooperate in mass deportation efforts. But a California law, Senate Bill 54, passed during the last Trump term, prohibits state and local jurisdictions from cooperating with federal authorities on deportation,with notable exceptions for serious crimes. Local authorities are carefully weighing the legal and moral implications of potential actions.
El Cajon Councilmembers split over whether to cooperate with federal mass deportation efforts
El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells, a Republican who took an anti-immigrant stance during his unsuccessful Congressional campaign, recently told inewssource that he believes the Trump administration’s stance on mass deportations is “right” but said he wants the feds to “give me a way that I don’t damage my city, damage my police department.” Wels claims El Cajon residents support that stance.
On social media, Wells railed against sanctuary city policies as “stupid and dangerous” claiming such policies allow criminals to “roam free in our communities” and blasting SB 54, also known as the California Values Act. In fact, however, SB 54 does allow police to cooperate with immigration authorities in turning over undocumented immigrants who are convicted of serious or violent crimes,such as murder, rape, child abuse,battery, drug sale or possession,and sex trafficking. State law also allows joint task forces to investigate crimes such as drug trafficking, as ElCajon has done.
Mayor Wells’ stance on immigrants today as a dramatic shift from ten years ago, when he spoke to a crowd of 2,000 gathered at a prayer vigil for Christians persecuted by ISIS terrorists. At the vigil in 2014, Wells told local Chaldean Christians to advise loved ones in Iraq that if they could get to El Cajon,”I want you to tell them they will be safe here.” A growing number of immigrants to El Cajon in recent years are also fleeing violence and persecution, from places such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Central America. Some are undocumented immigrants,and others have come on special immigrant visas—a status that Trump also wants to end.
At yesterday’s meeting, Mayor Wells and Councilman Phil Ortiz introduced a measure asking the Council to agree on sending a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta seeking clarification on whether federal law supercedes state law, as well as the penalties or consequences if El Cajon decides to defy state law and cooperate with federal authorities.
Making matters even thornier for local officials, Trump’s nominee for Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Homan, recently threatened to imprison Denver’s Mayor, Mike Johnston, afetr Johnston said he would resist mass deportaton of migrants andencourage people to protest against mass roundups in their communities. “I’m willing to put him in jail,” Homan said of Johnston, a Democrat, on Fox News.
But Councilman Gary Kendrick, a Republican, strongly disagreed with having the city’s police round up immigrants who have broken no laws other than how they entered the country. While he said turning over criminals who committed serious crimes to ICE could keep citizens including immigrants safer, he added,”I don’t want to see our police dragging kids out of school or church, or factory workers—people who are working out there and haven’t committed crimes...I could never support that.”
He added that police are already overworked, adding,”I don’t want to alienate non-criminal undocumented immigrants.” He noted such actions could have a chilling effect on solving crimes. “If there is a murder or rape, people aren’t going to report it if they think they will be shipped out of the country.”
Kendrick concluded, “We ave a lot of minorities and they’re part of the fabric of our community, and we don’t want to rip up that fabric.”
City Manager Graham Mitchell clarified the dilemma. “If the federal government requires us to participate in deportation procedures, how do we respond legally and morally to that?” He also questioned what the city should do if it had reason to believe an undocumented immigrant was “preying on others” but without enough evidence to arrest them, a scenario that could open the door to having people deported based on mere accusations.”What is our moral obligation to our community?” Further, Mitchell asked if El Cajon were to defy state law and cooperate fully with federal immigration officers, “What would the state do as a penalty to our city or its officers?”
Councilman Steve Goble asked if the state would indemnify police officers who refuse to follow federal orders. Councilman Ortiz wondered if uncodumented immigrants might move into cities with sanctuary policies.
The Council agreed to have staff draft a letter to the state Attorney General, which will be reviewed by Wells and Ortiz.
Supervisors vote for stronger immigrant protections than state law requires, but Sheriff says she will follow state mandates, not county’s action
At the San Diego County Supervisors meeting yesterday, by contrast, Supervisors voted 3-1 to have the nation’s fifth most populous county restrict local cooperation with federal immigration authorities even more than state law requires. The vote prohibits the Sheriff from working with ICE to deport people, absent a judicial order.
Three Democrats voted in favor introduced by Nora Vargas, while Republican Jim Desmond strongly opposed the actoin and Joel Anderson was absent.
"Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and our county will not be a tool for policies that hurt our residents," said Vargas, who added that the policy "is designed to ensure local resources are focused on addressing the County's most urgent needs, while protecting families and promoting community trust."
But the Sheriff has announced her intent to defy Supervisors and follow state law, effectively rendering Supervisors’ action toothless.
Supervisor Desmond blasted Supervisors’ action on social media as “outrageous” and said he would contact theTrump administration to “ensure that illegal immigrant criminals are removed from our neighborhoods.”
Though some have blamed sanctuary city policies on increasing crime, in fact a2018 study by a University of California San Diego professor found the opposite. The study concluded that sanctuary counties actually have significantly lower crime rates and stronger economies than those that have cooperated with ICE to deport immigrants.
Supervisors’ action aligned with those of seven other counties in California, including Los Angeles,the state’s biggest city, Associated Press reports. Around 300 people showed up in favor, with 200 opposed, KPBS reports, making for a an emotional and at times, raucus hearing.
As for Sheriff Kelly Martinez, she stated, “Current state law strikes the right balance between limiting local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration authorities, ensuring public safety, and building community trust.”
The Sheriff, a Democrat elected to the nonpartisan office, made clear, “The Sheriff’s Office will not change its practices based on the Board resolution and policy that was passed at today’s meeting. The Board of Supervisors does not set policy for the Sheriff’s Office...California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff, and is clear that the Sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate county jails.”
Recent comments