This SoCal mayor tried to help with deportations. His city council voted ‘no’

A monthslong showdown in El Cajon over the mayor’s promises to support President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda culminated Tuesday night when a divided city council rejected a resolution aimed at showing the city’s intent to cooperate with the federal government on immigration. 

The 3-2 vote came after several hours of public comment during which dozens of opponents shared emotional anecdotes, fears and indignation with the council over what they viewed as an attack on the immigrant community. Supporters, on the other hand, urged the city to play a role in removing immigrants who have committed crimes from the U.S. 

At the heart of the debate is California’s “sanctuary law,” or SB 54, which limits how and when local law enforcement agencies can help with the enforcement of federal immigration law. 

Mayor Bill Wells has denounced the law on social media, saying it makes communities unsafe, and in an interview with inewsource in December, that he was weighing whether to order the El Cajon Police Department to help with Trump’s mass deportations, potentially in violation of SB 54. 

The resolution would have declared the city’s intent to comply with federal immigration enforcement “to the legal extent permissible” under SB 54 and federal law. An alternative resolution attempting a compromise that was proposed during the meeting also failed. 

The failed resolutions were the latest development in the city’s immigration debate. Weeks before, the council sent a letter to State Attorney General Rob Bonta asking for clarification on the limits of SB 54 and considered another version of the resolution. 

It’s unclear exactly what practical consequences either resolution would have had. 

SB 54 already allows local and federal cooperation on immigration when it comes to individuals who have been convicted of certain serious or violent crimes, according to multiple legal experts. Furthermore, federal courts have already decided that SB 54 does not conflict with federal law. 

The resolutions appeared to have as their goal to declare the city’s political positioning in the ongoing debate over whether local authorities should cooperate with the feds on immigration. 

The stakes behind that question were underscored last week as Trump took office and empowered immigration officials to dramatically increase deportation operations. The Washington Post reported that the administration handed down quotas to immigration officials to ramp up arrests: 1,200 to 1,500 daily across the country. 

The administration has also signaled an intent to take legal action against jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, which includes California and San Diego County. 

Tuesday night, El Cajon residents from nearly every age group and various backgrounds waited in a queue of 81 speakers to share their thoughts on the resolution. Many, both supporters and opponents, talked about their own immigrant background. Several said it was their first time at a city council meeting. 

Carlos Gómez Pérez, who identified himself as a U.S. military veteran, said he crossed into the country unlawfully as a 9-year-old before he became a citizen.

“I have fought terrorists, I’ve fought insurgents, I’ve been shot twice.I never considered I’d have to come back home, I’d have to fight you guys, to ensure that we were free and protected,” Gómez Pérez said. 

Other opponents to the resolution said it would reduce already strained community relations with the police, lead to racial profiling of El Cajon residents, create tension between neighbors and add to growing fear over deportations. Others accused Wells of attempting a political stunt to win over the Trump administration’s favor. 

Supporters zeroed in on the argument that violent criminals in El Cajon need to be deported and protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation encourages more unlawful migration and violations of law. 

“Getting rid of violent criminals is important. We can’t even do it with our own citizens and we can’t do it with illegal citizens. And I just don’t understand why. We should be able to be safe,” said Chrystal Reed, an El Cajon resident. 

Several studies dispute claims linking immigration to violent crime. A study in the scientific journal Criminology based on data from all 50 states over 25 years found that “undocumented immigration does not increase violence.” Another research article found no “statistically discernible difference” in rates of violent crime, rape or property crimes in cities with sanctuary policies compared to those without. 

SB 54 already allows discretion for sheriffs and police to “notify ICE regarding persons with felony convictions and serious misdemeanors,” said Jean Lantz Reisz, who codirects the immigration law clinic at the University of Southern California. 

Local police can also arrest individuals who have reentered the U.S. after being removed for a prior aggravated felony conviction, according to a bulletin from the California Attorney General’s Office. 

Councilmember Michelle Metschel received a standing ovation after saying immigrants who crossed the border without inspection and are otherwise law-abiding should not be targeted. She said she received around more than 100 emails about the agenda item. 

“Anybody wants to come and tell me that the man who is working his job and his only crime was crossing the border is a criminal – you’re wrong,” Metschel said. 

Metschel said the resolution was unnecessary, “makes us look like racists,” and that El Cajon police should continue to work with immigration officials when it comes to violent criminals. 

“There is a difference between those criminals and the people just living their life,” Metschel said. 

Wells asked his council members to support the original resolution , summing up the discussion as a “cultural war.”

“It has nothing to do with racism. This has to do with intent to cooperate with the federal government,” Wells said. 

Wells and Councilmember Phil Ortiz voted in support of the resolution. Metschel and councilmembers Gary Kendrick and Steve Goble voted against it.