Why This Matters
The political clash unfolding in San Diego County over “sanctuary” policies is drawing a national spotlight and a scrutiny likely to impact local communities as Trump pursues his deportation plan.
With a month remaining before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, tensions are rising in San Diego County as officials debate a key question in the incoming administration’s plans for the “largest deportation” in U.S. history:
What role should local law enforcement play?
At the heart of the debate are “sanctuary” policies – rules protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation by limiting how and when local law enforcement agencies can cooperate with the feds on immigration enforcement. California has a statewide sanctuary law, known as SB 54, or the California Values Act, which generally applies to state and local police and county sheriffs.
The clash between local elected officials attempting to strengthen sanctuary protections, and those trying to degrade them, has thrown San Diego yet again into the national spotlight of the immigration debate.
After the San Diego Board of Supervisors voted last week to further restrict the local law enforcement’s ability to work with the feds, Sheriff Kelly Martinez responded swiftly: She would not be following the county’s new restrictions, though would continue to comply with the restrictions set under state law.
Her defiance was covered extensively by national news outlets.
Weighing in, Tom Homan, Trump’s incoming “border czar,” told the New York Post this week that the county’s new policy was “10 times worse” than other sanctuary laws and suggested that the U.S. attorney would prosecute localities with such policies. Homan also previously threatened to cut federal funding to states with sanctuary policies.
Martinez’s disagreement with the county isn’t the only recent time San Diego has been thrown into the national spotlight on the immigration debate.
The Mayor of El Cajon, who in recent weeks has taken to social media and televised interviews to attack SB 54, also criticized the new county policy, and said he hopes the Trump administration “does something very drastic” in response.
In a previous interview with inewsource, Wells said he was considering violating state law to aid the Trump administration. The El Cajon City Council voted last week to draft a letter to the California attorney general’s office asking, among other questions, what the consequences will be for jurisdictions that defy the state law.
As the Trump administration seeks to carry out its deportation campaign next month, local enforcement could be caught between conflicting mandates from local, state and federal authorities, said Tom Wong, director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego.
Local law enforcement could play a key role in the incoming administration’s promise to deport millions of immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization – a task experts say the federal government is incapable of carrying out alone.
The intensifying political showdown in San Diego offers a glimpse at debates that may soon take shape across the country.“This drama is going to play out as soon as the Trump administration issues its Day 1 executive order on mass deportations,” Wong said.
Local debate heats up
Supporters of sanctuary policies say they’re important because they help foster trust between local law enforcement agencies and undocumented migrants, who could be witnesses to crimes and help with solving and preventing them.
Speaking to county supervisors during a packed public comment session – with more than 100 speakers – supporters also talked about the devastating toll of deportations on families and communities.
State law prohibits local law enforcement from honoring transfer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, or other federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant – unless it concerns a person with a prior serious or violent conviction, among other exceptions. If a transfer is not prohibited, the sheriff has discretion to fulfill it or not.
The new county policy requires a judicial warrant for all transfer requests, eliminating the state’s exceptions.
The county policy also prohibits local law enforcement collaboration with the feds generally, unless it’s for investigating a crime unrelated to immigration law.
Opponents of the new policy say it goes too far, arguing that it protects criminals, puts communities in danger and encourages unlawful immigration.
Studies have found that crime rates in cities with sanctuary policies are actually lower than in ones without them, and that the cities tend to be more economically vibrant.
What happens when local law enforcement help with immigration enforcement?
Critics of sanctuary laws say that they lead to increased crime. Several studies suggest otherwise.
A study from 2022 in a social science journal found that violent crime and property crime actually decreased more in sanctuary counties than others.
Another study by the Cato Institute found that increasing cooperation between local law enforcement resulted in more crimes against Hispanic people and fewer reports by victims.
Supporters of the policies say they help foster trust between police and immigrants, leading to increased crime reporting when they happen.A 2019 study found that when police help in immigration enforcement, undocumented immigrants were less likely to trust law enforcement to protect them from abuse and discrimination and maintain confidentiality for witnesses to crimes.
Whether the county and Martinez will settle their disagreement over the local policy remains to be seen.
In a statement in response to the policy last week, Martinez said SB 54 already “strikes the right balance between limiting local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration authorities, ensuring public safety, and building community trust.”
In 2023, the sheriff approved about 18% of the 1,059 information requests from ICE and 25 transfer requests total, including for detainees with convictions for burglary, theft, sale of illicit drugs, assault, sexual abuse, child abuse and murder.
Those transfers could be prohibited under the new county policy without a judicial warrant. But Martinez said the county does not set policy for her office.
A spokesperson for the county did not respond to that claim by time of publication.
But immigration advocates including Ian Seruelo, an attorney and chair of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, argue the sheriff is actually breaking state law if she doesn’t follow the local policy. The group sent a letter on behalf of the consortium to the sheriff last week arguing for her compliance.
That’s due to a line in the law which says that law enforcement has the discretion to cooperate with federal immigration authorities “only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy.”
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office did not respond to questions on the local dispute. But a spokesperson said his office expects all local law enforcement agencies to comply with state law and applicable local policies.
“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,” the spokesperson said.
Nora Vargas, who chairs the Board of Supervisors, expects the sheriff to complete a report in six months, required by the new policy, on how local law enforcement is following the directive.”
As a Board, we voted to limit the use of county resources for enforcing civil immigration policies, ensuring that local resources are focused on addressing the county’s most urgent needs, protecting families, and fostering community trust,” Vargas said.
