A bid to repeal a policy adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors late last year forbidding the use of local resources to assist immigration enforcement agents failed Tuesday.
The proposal introduced by Supervisor Jim Desmond sought to overturn what he has referred to as the “super sanctuary” policy, since it stemmed from state law that already strictly limits local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
The motion fell short of the required three-vote minimum, with Republicans Desmond and Joel Anderson voting in favor, Democrat Monica Montgomery Steppe in opposition, and Terra Lawson-Remer, a Democrat, present but abstaining.
“This is deeply disappointing,” Desmond said in a statement after the vote. “This was not about politics. This was about ensuring that criminals — rapists, child abusers, burglars, and violent offenders — are removed from our communities. Instead, fear and misinformation won the day, leaving law-abiding residents at greater risk.”
The California Values Act, or Senate Bill 54, signed into law in 2017, still allows some cooperation, namely allowing sheriff’s officials to coordinate with immigration officials the custody transfer of people convicted of certain serious felonies, including assault, sexual abuse, rape, kidnapping and arson. The law sought to increase trust within immigrant communities so that they would feel safe to report crimes.
In December, the Board of Supervisors went a step further, approving a policy to bar deputies from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including transfers of immigrant detainees, unless a warrant is issued by a federal or state judicial officer.
Montgomery Steppe, who voted in opposition, disagreed that the policy adopted by the county protects criminals. “What it was about is ensuring that this county stays in its lane and protects our region, and that the federal government stays in its lane,” she said.
She added that immigration enforcement and removal proceedings are federal matters, and that given proposed cuts by the current administration, “I really don’t think it’s in our best interest to continue to invest in even higher levels for our local law enforcement to do the federal government’s job.”
Lawson-Remer said in a statement after her abstaining vote that: “We will not be diverting limited County resources to mass deportations of the hundreds of thousands of local residents who work and go to school, pay taxes, and serve as essential members of our community — as firefighters and first responders, teachers and engineers, childcare providers, nurses, and farmworkers. Instead, our focus remains on public safety: deporting dangerous felons, not farmworkers or families.
“We will continue cooperating with federal authorities when legally required, but we will not undermine trust in local government by targeting our neighbors indiscriminately,” she added.
During Tuesday’s meeting, several people voiced their views on the proposal — most in opposition. Those in favor of repealing the policy cited public safety, while those in opposition raised concerns about immigrant communities’ trust in law enforcement and the tearing apart of families.
The policy had been introduced by former Chair Nora Vargas, who later stepped down from her post. It was approved 3-1 in December, with Desmond casting the lone dissenting vote and Anderson absent.
“The original author of this policy has since resigned and I believe it’s time to correct this policy,” Desmond said during the meeting.
The policy directed county staff to issue a report within 180 days that will include recommendations to the board on how to effectively administer it, a county spokesperson said.
County Sheriff Kelly Martinez reiterated — then and again Tuesday — that she would not honor the local policy and would instead continue to follow state law. In explaining her stance, Martinez has also pointed to another state law that gives the sheriff wide authority on how to run her jails.
The San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, a coalition of more than 40 local organizations, urged Martinez to reconsider in a Dec. 12 letter, adding that SB 54 states that “a law enforcement official shall have discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy.”
On Tuesday, following the county meeting, Martinez said her office “remains committed to our ongoing efforts to educate our immigrant communities on understanding our policies and posture when it comes to immigration enforcement.
“In listening to the public comment, I was dismayed at the lack of understanding of what we are actually doing,” Martinez said.
“ICE is never provided the release date of individuals that do not meet the requirements under SB 54,” she said. “I am firm in my belief that providing release dates to ICE under the stringent guidelines of SB 54 keeps communities safer. The individuals involved in this policy are deportable by ICE if found in the community. If ICE picks them up in the jail setting, there is no need for ICE to be in the community and potentially contacting family members and other members of the community.”
Anderson, who was absent when the policy was voted on in December, pointed out that the sheriff decides whether to enforce the policy. “To me, it was a waste of time to start with, and it’s a waste of time that we’re having to go through this,” he said.
The county policy was met with opposition from within the Trump administration, including “border czar” Tom Homan.
In addition, last month, California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, introduced a bill that would prohibit local jurisdictions from passing their own ordinances to impose additional prohibitions beyond those set by state law.
Originally Published:
