San Diego County’s new “super sanctuary” policy aims to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, sparking controversy and resistance from local law enforcement.
At a Glance
- San Diego County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities
- The policy aims to go beyond the 2017 California Values Act, further limiting local involvement in immigration enforcement
- Sheriff Kelly Martinez opposes the resolution, stating her office will continue to follow state law
- The decision has drawn criticism from some officials and is seen as part of efforts to “Trump-proof” the state
- The county is allocating $5 million for legal assistance to illegal aliens facing deportation
San Diego County Adopts “Super Sanctuary” Policy
In a bold move that has ignited debate, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution to severely limit county agencies’ cooperation with federal authorities on immigration enforcement. The decision, approved by a 3-1 vote led by Chair Nora Vargas, prevents county agencies from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on civil immigration matters, although it does not extend to criminal investigations.
The resolution aims to go beyond the 2017 California Values Act, which already restricted state and local cooperation on immigration matters. This new policy would prevent the county from assisting ICE in any form, including access to individuals, use of facilities, or communication regarding incarceration status or release dates.
Reminder, this super sanctuary policy will be voted on in San Diego County tomorrow, where Republican County Supervisor @jim_desmond tells FOX he believes his three Democrat colleagues on the Board will pass it by a vote of 3-2. It would go further than CA’s sanctuary state law. https://t.co/P8Tvsw63rh
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) December 9, 2024
Sheriff’s Opposition and Legal Concerns
County Sheriff Kelly Martinez has voiced strong opposition to the resolution, emphasizing that her office will continue to follow state law, which already limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The Sheriff’s stance highlights the potential conflict between local policy and state guidelines.
“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. The Sheriff, as an independently elected official, sets the 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 the county jails.” – Sheriff Kelly Martinez
The resolution has drawn criticism from various officials, including Supervisor Jim Desmond, who cast the lone dissenting vote. Desmond argued that the policy is reckless and could endanger community safety. Rep. Darrell Issa has also voiced concerns about the resolution’s implications.
Sanctuary policies are reckless and dangerous, putting innocent lives at risk. Every American family deserves safety. No community should suffer the heartbreak of losing a loved one due to politically driven policies that protect criminals instead of holding them accountable. https://t.co/qFahEA1nm5
— Supervisor Jim Desmond (@jim_desmond) December 6, 2024
Broader Implications and Federal Tensions
This decision is part of a larger narrative seen across various U.S. cities, where local governments are grappling with balancing local autonomy and federal immigration demands. The resolution is viewed as an effort to “Trump-proof” the state against potential changes in federal immigration enforcement policies.
“We will not allow our local resources to be used for actions that separate families, harm community trust or divert critical local resources away from addressing our most pressing challenges. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and our county will not be a tool for policies that hurt our residents.” – Nora Vargas
The county is also allocating $5 million to provide legal assistance to illegal aliens facing deportation, further solidifying its stance on protecting immigrant communities. However, this move raises questions about the use of public funds and potential conflicts with federal law.
Community Impact and Future Considerations
Proponents of the resolution argue that limiting cooperation with ICE will foster community trust and improve public safety by encouraging undocumented individuals to seek help when needed. However, critics warn that this policy could impede interagency cooperation and potentially compromise public safety.
“This is going to really impede different agencies and working together to make sure that everyone’s safe, even the immigrants that are here now that have come across the border. This is going to hurt their communities even worse.” – Jim Desmond
As San Diego County moves forward with this controversial policy, it remains to be seen how it will impact local law enforcement practices, community relations, and the broader debate on immigration enforcement in the United States. The resolution directs the county’s chief administrative officer to present implementation recommendations within 180 days, setting the stage for potential legal challenges and continued public discourse on this divisive issue.
Sources:
- California’s 2nd largest county aims to further limit cooperation with immigration authorities, but sheriff pushes back
- Blue state county tees up vote on ‘knee-jerk’ resolution to protect illegal immigrants from deportations
- Border Report: What a Sanctuary City Is, and Isn’t
- San Diego County Votes to Defy Trump on Deportations; Sheriff Says She’ll Follow State Law
