Over the holidays, a dispute intensified between the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Kelly Martinez over local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration officers.
Background: Through a series of laws passed in 2013, 2016 and 2017, the state of California already explicitly forbids local police to take certain actions to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. These kinds of restrictions are commonly called sanctuary policies, but it’s important to note that none of them prevent ICE officials from arresting or deporting people who live in the state.
The laws only cover the actions of local law enforcement. That includes blocking jail officials from holding people for transfer to ICE or communicating directly with ICE about when someone will be released unless that person has been convicted of certain crimes.
With the incoming Trump administration making promises of large-scale deportation, some cities and counties, including San Diego County, are trying to take those restrictions even further.
San Diego’s new policy: As I previewed in this newsletter last month, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted on Dec. 10 to move forward with a resolution that would prohibit sheriff deputies from doing anything that would help immigration officers arrest people for potential deportation, regardless of the person’s criminal history. Supervisor Jim Desmond was the lone vote against the resolution. Supervisor Joel Anderson was absent.
The resolution does not block deputies from communicating with ICE in order to carry out criminal investigations. For example, local law enforcement and federal agencies including ICE serve on task forces together regarding issues like gang activity, narcotics distribution and human trafficking. State law requires local law enforcement to report on their participation in these kinds of task forces that include immigration agencies but does not forbid their participation.
(The Supreme Court determined in the late 1800s that immigration status is a civil legal matter rather than a criminal one, just as legal issues like tax court disputes or divorce are civil rather than criminal.)
Even before the county board voted, Martinez said she would not agree to the increased restrictions. In the weeks since, her message to the board hasn’t changed.
“State law allows the sharing of certain information with ICE about persons who are in the custody of the Sheriff. I will continue to do that, for the permittable convictions which include many serious crimes, such as murder, rape, domestic violence, drug trafficking, etc,” Martinez said in an emailed statement. “I am committed to the core mission of every law enforcement agency and that is community safety and I believe that following what is permissible under state law helps to do that. There is a lot of rhetoric in the news and public spaces right now. I will not comment on the rhetoric or speculate on yet-to-be-defined policies of the incoming president or his administration.”
The vote’s aftermath: Local immigrant rights advocates, through a collective of more than 40 organizations called the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, were quick to point out in the days after the vote that the most recent state law, known as the California Values Act or SB 54, includes language that says local law enforcement has the discretion to work with federal immigration officials “only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy.”
The advocates argued in a letter to the sheriff that the new county resolution counts as a local policy that the sheriff should have to follow.
“We were disappointed by your declaration that you would not be following [the board resolution],” the letter says. “It disrespects the will of the community, and goes against not just the values of our county but state law itself.”
An unnamed staff member from State Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said that Bonta could not provide a legal analysis of the San Diego situation now but hinted that the office might be preparing to take more action in the future.
“It is our expectation that all local law enforcement agencies comply with SB 54 and all applicable local policies enacted in accordance with SB 54,” the staff member wrote via email. “In light of the President-elect’s threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation, we are monitoring compliance closely; we will take a look at the facts of each scenario as it arises; and we will respond appropriately if we believe an agency is violating the law.”
Bonta’s office also suggested reaching out to the County Counsel. A spokesperson for the county acknowledged the policy vote but declined to answer more specific questions about the counsel’s interpretation of the law.
A spokesperson for board Chair Nora Vargas’s office was not able to provide any additional information. Vargas unexpectedly announced on Dec. 20 that she would be stepping down this week “due to personal safety and security reasons.”
On Dec. 23, America First Legal Foundation, a nonprofit spearheaded by Stephen Miller, who was at the center of incoming President Donald Trump’s immigration policies during his first term and who is returning as the deputy chief of staff for policy, sent a letter to Vargas and nearly 250 other officials around the country warning them not to get in the way of federal immigration enforcement.
“This resolution clearly violates federal law and subjects those who abide by it to significant risk of criminal and civil liability,” the letter says. “Accordingly, we are sending this letter to put you on notice of this risk and insist that you comply with our nation’s laws.”
The letter suggests that officials who comply with resolutions like the one recently passed by the county board could end up being prosecuted for concealing, harboring or shielding undocumented immigrants under the Trump administration.
Bonta’s office called the move a scare tactic.
It is unclear if the board’s vote on the immigration policy resolution is in any way connected with Vargas’s decision to leave her position.
The board resolution itself includes requiring the county chief administration officer to report back to the board within 180 days with recommendations as to how to “effectively administer” the new policy.
Thank you for reading. I’m open for tips, suggestions and feedback on Instagram and Threads @katemorrisseyjournalist and on X/Twitter and Bluesky @bgirledukate.
In Other News
- Trump 2.0: inewsource’s Sofía Mejías-Pascoe has a list of ways that the incoming Trump administration’s policies could affect San Diego.
- INM corruption: Salvador Rivera reported for Fox5 that some migrants are paying Tijuana taxi drivers who are working with Mexican immigration officials, known by the Spanish acronym INM, to get into the United States. This is far from the first time that INM officers have been accused of accepting bribes to help people get into the United States.
- Botón de alerta: Alexandra Mendoza reports for The San Diego Union-Tribune that Mexico is working to prepare for the possibility of large-scale deportations under the Trump administration, including by creating a mobile app with an alert button to let the local consulate as well as family members know if people think ICE is about to arrest them.
- Deported to torture: I wrote in Capital & Main about the fears that many Salvadoran men in ICE custody are facing because they have tattoos, and they believe that means they will be imprisoned and tortured in El Salvador if ICE deports them.
- Borderlands Visions: The Centro Cultural de la Raza is hosting the third in a series of an exhibit on borders. The exhibit, called Borderlands Visions, opened the new installment on Sunday evening and will run through the end of March. It is free and open to the public from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday.
Leave a comment