Just days after the “No Kings” protests against President Donald Trump, the city and county of San Diego took action to further restrict local agencies from assisting federal agents on immigration enforcement.
The moves were largely, though not entirely, symbolic. There’s merit in taking a strong stand, and clarifying local rules of engagement, against what many elected officials consider to be Trump’s wrongheaded, overly aggressive immigration actions — a central issue in last week’s nationwide demonstrations.
But there’s not much local governments can do to counter the increasingly militaristic immigration enforcement approach. Nevertheless, that hasn’t kept San Diego Democratic council members, supervisors, elected officials, other cities, and residents from trying.
Many have expressed frustration not only with the spike in immigration-related arrests, but the reality that many of the undocumented immigrants swept up in the raids otherwise have no record of illegal offenses. In some cases, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens have been detained.
Trump had said his “mass deportation” plan was aimed at serious immigrant criminals and gang members.
One of the goals of these San Diego ordinances is to prevent local resources from being used on immigration enforcement. But the California sanctuary law already broadly prohibits state and local collaboration with the federal government on immigration actions. Supporters say such limits are important because immigrants, legal or not, may be reluctant to report crimes if they see local police agencies as an arm of federal immigration enforcement.
Local ordinances and resolutions can go beyond state law, but the result, at best, may make a difference only on the margins.
On Monday, San Diego City Councilmember Raul Campillo joined the unanimous vote in favor of the anti-collaboration ordinance proposed by Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera. But neither suggested it would do much to change the current equation.
“There is little we can do as a city to stop the federal government’s overreach, because city law is subordinate to federal law,” Campillo said, according to Alexandra Mendoza of The San Diego Union-Tribune.
The ordinance, which still must receive a second approval, requires federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a judicial warrant or court order to access any nonpublic area of city-controlled properties. The policy also establishes data privacy rules for residents interacting with public systems and requires signage in multiple languages explaining the ordinance must be posted in city facilities.
Any entity receiving city funding, such as contractors, would have to follow the city’s warrant and noncooperation standards.
The San Diego Police Department’s current participation in numerous joint task forces with the federal government, such as those targeting drug dealers and terrorism, would not be affected.
On Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors moved toward adopting a similar policy to the city’s regarding access to county buildings and contractor cooperation. However, the county already requires warrants to enter nonpublic areas of county buildings, but supervisors said they are seeking to give more clarity and emphasis to that.
Last year, a move by the San Diego supervisors to restrict Sheriff’s Office interaction with federal agents ran into a roadblock.
On the heels of similar action in Los Angeles, the San Diego board in December passed a resolution to limit county cooperation with federal immigration authorities beyond state law. The measure called for ending voluntary transfers from the county into federal custody, or notifications of anyone’s release from detention, requiring the federal agency to get a judicial warrant.
Sheriff Kelly Martinez quickly rejected the directive, saying she would continue cooperating with federal agencies but only in instances permitted by state law, which includes sharing information about immigrants with convictions for serious crimes, like murder, rape and drug trafficking.
In addition to citing public safety concerns, Martinez, an independently elected official, said the supervisors did not have the authority to set policies for her department.
Not long after that, support for the policy oscillated among other officials.
Paloma Aguirre, a Democrat who was elected to the board in July, told the Voice of San Diego in January the resolution was “a mistake” and expressed concern that it could allow convicted felons back into communities.
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, also a Democrat, said at the time she stood by her vote for the resolution, but said defending it would not be a priority. “If there was to be a threat of mass deportations, . . . this would not be a useful tool,” she said.
A proposal by Republican Supervisor Jim Desmond to repeal the resolution in March fell short of votes to pass. Lawson-Remer abstained. Aguirre later expressed support for the resolution.
Raids led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are being carried out across the country as Trump continues pressing to put National Guard troops on the ground with them. An appeals court this week allowed the president to deploy the National Guard in Portland, Ore., and he is appealing a ruling that prevents him from doing so in Chicago.
In addition to efforts to keep the county out of enforcement, the supervisors in recent years have approved funding for legal support, shelters and other services for undocumented immigrants.
Some local governments around the country have taken a variety of actions to limit cooperation with immigration enforcement, such as creating no-go areas for federal agents without a warrant, including schools.
Meanwhile, residents have formed immigration-raid warning patrols to give neighbors a heads-up when federal agents are in their communities. There’s disagreement over the legality of such actions. Observing and recording law enforcement is generally protected, but warning people to avoid arrest or physically interfering with ICE operations could be considered obstruction.
Meanwhile, some states have moved to block facilities from being used for privately operated migrant detention facilities.
In Portland, officials have been looking to land-use restrictions to keep migrant detention centers out of neighborhoods.
Skeptics question whether Portland actually has the authority to do that, according to The New York Times. Some immigration advocates have a larger concern: shutting down facilities in Portland could mean residents are sent to detention centers hours away from their homes and families.
What they said
Brett Meiselas (@BMeiselas), co-founder of MeidasTouch News.
“The same people who lost their minds over renovations to Cracker Barrel are totally fine with the White House getting bulldozed.”