San Diego County Board of Supervisors Prohibits Helping ICE Deport Illegal Aliens
So even if an illegal alien in the local police’s custody has been convicted of heinous crime they cannot turn them over to ICE.
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to make the city a “Super Sanctuary,” prohibiting the county from cooperating with ICE.
“The proposed resolution and Board Policy specifies that the County shall not provide assistance or cooperation to federal immigration authorities in its civil immigration enforcement efforts, including by giving federal immigration agents access to individuals or allowing them to use County facilities for investigative interviews or other purposes, expending County time or resources responding to federal immigration inquiries or communicating with federal immigration authorities regarding individuals’ incarceration status or release dates, or otherwise participating in any civil immigration enforcement activities,” according to the resolution.
Chairwoman Nora Vargas doesn’t think California’s sanctuary law goes far enough, so she proposed such a strict policy on immigration enforcement.
“While the California Values Act significantly expanded protection from deportation to California residents, it fell short of protecting all residents because it allowed agencies to still notify ICE of release dates and transfers individuals to ICE without a warrant in some circumstances,” wrote Vargas. “This loophole has allowed the transfer of some individuals to ICE and notifications to ICE of release dates, leading to the deportation of our community members and the separation of families in our region.”
Vargas claimed the policy would increase trust in the community. She also said it would free up resources for other critical needs, reducing the administrative and operational costs tied to federal immigration enforcement.
“By avoiding active cooperation with ICE, including through specific notification to ICE of the release dates of immigrants, the County avoids treating a group of individuals differently solely on the basis of their immigration status,” said Vargas. “The County likewise avoids providing unequal access to probation programs and re-entry services for certain ex-offenders based on their immigration status.”
Here’s something I don’t get: “Limiting cooperation focuses our local County resources on local matters, as immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.”
So Vargas insists it’s just for “civil” infractions but not criminal violations.
But that means when an illegal alien is in their custody, and they’ve been “convicted of a higher-level misdemeanor or felony,” the officials cannot turn them over.
Santa Clara County enacted a similar policy in 2019 that limits cooperation.
Republican Jim Desmond voted against it. He wrote:
This reckless measure not only goes far beyond California’s already extreme Sanctuary State laws but actively endangers our communities by shielding illegal immigrant criminals from deportation. Consider this: under this policy, law enforcement is prohibited from notifying ICE about individuals, in custody, who have committed violent and heinous crimes, including: Rape and stalking, Assault and battery, Burglary, Child abuse and more.
Let me be crystal clear—this policy means that an illegal immigrant who has committed one of these appalling crimes will now walk free on our streets, once they serve their jail sentence, protected by County policies, with no coordination with ICE.
NEW: San Diego County becomes “Super” Sanctuary in 3-1 vote.
The resolution says the county, “Shall not provide assistance or cooperation to ICE in its civil immigration enforcement efforts including by giving ICE agents access to individuals or allowing them to use County… pic.twitter.com/FTrkN55V5X
— Ali Bradley (@AliBradleyTV) December 10, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sounds like a lot of California officials will be doing Federal time.
No, they won’t. What they’re doing is not only completely legal, but it can’t be made illegal. It’s stupid and dangerous, but it’s protected by the constitution. The only entity that can make it illegal is the California legislature, which isn’t going to.
Think outside the box.
There is no “outside the box”. Any federal official who arrested a state official for refusing assistance to the federal government, especially if his refusal was in obedience to state or local law, would himself be a criminal, and would himself do time.
The supremacy clause waves hello.
The supremacy clause doesn’t come into it. There is no federal law requiring states or cities to lift a finger to help ICE, and if Congress were ever to try passing such a law the Tenth Amendment would come over and rip it into shreds.
Sanctuary cities/states are protected by the constitution and any attempt to compel them would make the one doing so a criminal.
Blue State Sanctuary Cities wi
BS
It’s not BS, it’s the law. It’s been the law for as long as we have had this republic.
The anti-commandeering doctrine.
Milhouse is correct that the States can’t be ordered by the Federal gov’t to do X. The States hold individual sovereignty, they are not extensions of the Federal gov’t and no one on our side of the political divide should desire it to be different b/c it would absolutely be used against those in Red States at some point. Federalism is a very good thing.
That said the Federal gov’t could make receipt of federal funding contingent upon some level of cooperation. One example would be hospital reimbursements for indigent; the feds could tie that to collection and reporting data about Citizenship. Same for federal education funds to schools. All sorts of ways to create incentives for cooperation.
For LEO funding/grants; tie them to requirement deputize local LEO to act as ICE just as many local ‘joint’ task forces deputize local LEO today as a US Marshall. That’s an incentive which the States/local gov’t are free to say ‘no thanks’ and forego the Federal funds.
The Federal gov’t can’t just order or directly compel the States or the local governments to do X. The States can always decline the funding and thus the requirements of cooperation that come with it.
The federal government (i.e. the administration) can’t do that. Only Congress itself can do it, and it must do so explicitly and unambiguously. It can’t just give the government discretion; it has to say “this funding is conditioned on a state doing X”.
And it can’t do even that, if the amount the state stands to lose if it doesn’t comply is too much for it to afford. As you wrote: “The States can always decline the funding and thus the requirements of cooperation that come with it.” That requires that it can actually afford to decline the funding. If the amount of funding that’s conditioned on cooperation is too high then the state isn’t being persuaded, it’s being compelled, and that’s unconstitutional. In that case the courts will strike the condition down and require the funding to continue unconditionally. In S Dakota v Dole the Court decided that 5% of highway funding is affordable; but in NFIB v Sibelius it decided that a state’s entire Medicare funding is not affordable, and therefore struck down the conditions Congress put on it.
Yes the Congress (and if we’re being pedantic) in concert with the Executive baring a veto override can absolutely attach conditions to programs.
The glaring issue with the two cases you cite in support of your position is they involve programs jointly administered and jointly funded by State and Federal gov’t. That doesn’t hold for federal grants made voluntarily to States or Local govt to support a particular end goal. The State and Local govt do not have any legitimate claim on these grants continuing in perpetuity.
For purely federal grants to a State or Local govt the Feds can attach nearly whatever conditions they wish as preconditions for eligibility. There’s no reliance interest or property interest that can reasonably be argued in stand alone grants. To argue otherwise would be to remove the sole Constitutional authority of Congress to both authorize and appropriate federal funds.
In the case of ICE cooperation that’s even easier b/c I propose removing the current process to deputize local LEO as US Marshall and replace that Federal LEO authority by instead deputize them as ICE. So if they want any Federal TF cooperation the State and local govt gotta allow ICE to deputize their LEO, who then would have a duty to perform those functions. Certainly enough to require their cooperation with ICE detainer.
True…but then the Federal Govt is under no obligation to provide Federal Funding to States that refuse to support Federal Laws. The legality of this was demonstrated when the Feds mandated the 55MPH speed limits and cut off transportation funds to any State that did not comply.
You’re thinking of S Dakota v Dole. Go read it. The funding cut in that case was upheld only because of three factors:
1. It was Congress that made the condition on the funds
2. It did so explicitly and unambiguously.
3. The cut was only 5% of the federal highway funds for the state, and that was small enough that the state could afford to forgo the money and keep its laws as it liked them. Had the cut been so big as to not leave the state with a choice, it would have been struck down.
Oh, and it wasn’t about the speed limit, it was about the drinking age. But that’s irrelevant. The same factors come into play whenever Congress wants to use funding to get a state to do as it wishes. It can’t compel, it can only persuade. If the state can’t afford to say no, that’s compulsion and it’s unconstitutional.
No, actually, they would possibly be “harboring” those illegals. Which IS a federal crime.
Considering how many laws have been written in our country’s history I’m pretty sure there are a few that could be used as intimidation.
Kind of like indicting Trump for paying back a loan on time to everyone’s satisfaction and being taken into court on a bullschiff charge.
No, they would not be harboring. They are doing nothing to assist the illegals; they’re just refusing to assist the feds, which is their right. Any law that defined that as “harboring” would itself be unconstitutional.
Just deport all illegals to California and cut off federal funding. Problem will sell correct.
For now, but let any of them do anything at all affirmative to try to “protect” one of those illegal alien criminals and see what the feds do.
So what happens when this policy is violated by a county LEO?
I’m anxiously waiting for one of these sanctuary proponents to actively interfere with federal immigration agents and be taken into federal custody themselves.
What happens when a LEO violates the policy is he gets disciplined, and possibly fired.
They are not interfering with anything. In all the 20+ years that “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” have been operating, there has never been even one case of an official of such a city or state doing that. Not one.
They are simply exercising their constitutional right to refuse the federal government any assistance. That’s not interference, because they have no duty to assist.
There is not duty to assist, but when ICE demands the surrender of an illegal alien, and the local government refuses, that seems obstructiony to me. Even not telling the feds the alien is in their custody could be considered obstruction, possibly even making the local authorities accomplices. A lot of things had never been done before, but then DJT decided to run against for POTUS.
No, it is not obstruction, because surrendering the alien is assistance, and so is informing the feds that the alien is in custody, and the feds cannot ever, under any circumstances compel a state to assist it. The minute you interpret the obstruction law to require such assistance, that law automatically becomes invalid.
This is a core principle of our constitution, and has withstood the test of almost 250 years.
I don’t think it would be lawful to, for instance, deny federal agents bearing a valid arrest warrant from a state facility to prevent the arrest of an illegal alien. Do you know of any case law to the contrary?
If the agents have a warrant for the person, they have to let them into the facility and arrest him. They don’t have to assist in any way, just stand aside and let the agents do their job, just like you or I would have to do if agents showed up on our doorstep with a warrant for someone in our home.
But if the agents don’t have a warrant they don’t have to even let them in. And state law says they’re not allowed to, except in certain extreme cases. Now city law says they’re not allowed to even in those cases.
Does the supremacy clause ring a bell. Look like To.s going to be busy.
The supremacy clause has nothing to do with it. There is no federal law requiring local officials to assist ICE. And the reason there is no such law is that there can’t be. If Congress were to make such a law it would be invalid. Congress knows that very well, so it hasn’t made one.
Now that San Diego is a super sanctuary, it’s time to start bussing a large number of illegal aliens to San Diego, as befits their super sanctuary status. It’s convenient that San Diego is close to the border, so it will be a short bus ride.
No, what she means is that ICE is enforcing the civil infraction of being in the USA illegally. It’s got nothing to do with what landed the person in jail. That could indeed be a serious crime, but they still won’t cooperate with ICE which is only enforcing a civil matter.
It’s a fact that illegal presence in this country is not a crime. It’s a civil infraction, and that’s what ICE is enforcing. That doesn’t mean it isn’t important.
These people are endangering their community for the sake of their ideology, but it’s their constitutional right so long as the state doesn’t tell them they can’t. And they represent the people who elected them, so that’s presumably what the people want, and they deserve to get it good and hard.
If you’re here illegally, you have to have entered the country LEGALLY or you’re subject to criminal arrest and prosecution under 8 USC § 1325 or 8 USC § 1326 if you’re a repeat offender.
Someone who overstays their properly obtained visa and entered the country through a designated border crossing and was entered into our border control system, has likely not committed a crime nor is their illegal presence a crime, only a civil matter. If someone is here illegally and they don’t have a visa or there’s no record of them checking in with customs or they’ve been previously deported, they’ve committed at least one crime and perhaps several crimes, as cited above.
They may have committed a crime, but ICE is not enforcing that crime. ICE only enforces the civil violation of being in the country illegally. Once it has someone in custody the US Attorney may choose to prosecute for illegal entry, but usually chooses not to. But that’s not in ICE’s hands.
And that is what Vargas means when she speaks of it being merely civil enforcement. But it wouldn’t matter if it were criminal enforcement; states and their subdivisions may not be compelled to assist the federal government in anything. And Congress is not allowed to compel them to do so, even merely by cutting their funding by more than they can afford to lose. Any such cut would be unconstitutional and the courts would order the USA to keep paying the money.
States may not be compelled to assist the federal government, but can they legally obstruct the enforcement of federal law? That is an entirely different issue. And any state entity that commits such obstruction does so at their peril.
No official in any sanctuary city or state has ever been caught obstructing ICE. These things have been around for over 20 years, and it’s never happened even once. So no, they’re not obstructing anyone. They’re simply refusing to help. If ICE has a warrant it can come into the jail and fetch the alien. If it doesn’t, it can wait outside the jail and arrest the guy when he comes out. But the police have no duty, and under state and local law have no right to make ICE’s life easier by handing the guy over, or by telling ICE he’s there, or when he’s leaving, or even by letting them in without a warrant. Doing those things would make the policeman just as much a criminal as the alien.
That is our constitution, and it’s served us well for 250 years. Don’t mess with it now, or you’ll miss it when you need it.
This is almost certain to change come January 20th.
It’s unlikely. There aren’t the resources for prosecuting and then housing all of them in prison. That’s why there have always been very few such prosecutions, even before 0bama. The feds almost always just deport the guy and mark his file as inadmissible ever again.
Tom Homan replies, “Oh boy, those idiots in San Diego really want to make my day.”
If he says that, he’s in for a nasty surprise, because there is literally nothing he can legally do about it. If he tries, he becomes the criminal.
Time to turn off the Federal funds to San Diego County. All Federal funds.
That would be unconstitutional even if Congress itself did it. So the Supreme Court has ruled, several times.
Even a small cut, which the county could afford, can’t be made by the federal government, it can only be made by Congress, and only in explicit unambiguous language. But not even Congress can cut off all funds.
Millhouse, I am not sure of your statement here. I served on a Federal grand jury, and almost if not every session we had indictments in front of us for people/illegal aliens being in the country illegally, usually after being captured by local law enforcement, or on occasion, by Federal marshals.
I am not sure it was a civil infraction they were indicted for, and I never saw the words ‘civil infraction’ on any indictment.
Further, the Federal government under President Biden went after state and local governments hard for not adhering to the orders of Biden and his henchmen/henchwomen (New word). There were not all wins for local jurisdictions on this issue.
I think you might find the legal system is not going to back up your position in this case, though States rights vs. Federal power will be an ever growing issue in the coming years.
There is no law making it a crime to be in this country illegally. The law simply does not exist. Therefore what you report is impossible, and so I think you are misremembering.
No, it didn’t. Examples, please.
State and local governments are bound by federal law. But no law can compel them to assist the federal government. Any law purporting to do so is automatically invalid.
8 U.S. Code § 1325 indicates you are in error.
No, it indicates you are in error. Not one word in that section makes it a crime to remain illegally in the USA.
See US V Arizona : “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984).”
Wait till they declare themselves a super duper sanctuary city
Milhouse is drunk on Cali koolaide
Nothing and I mean nothing will stop Trump from deporting the illegals
Nothing will stop him, but he will get no assistance from Californian state or local officials. And if he tries to force them he will be a criminal.
It’s obvious the Trump administration will need to prioritize their deportation efforts, it’s physically impossible to round up everyone at once, They’ve said they’re going to prioritize criminals, that’s well and good. Next step is to prioritize areas of the country that are NOT so-called sanctuaries. Let the sanctuary cities, counties and states stew in their own juices for a while, but clean up the mess for the rest of us.
San Diego has certainly changed since I went to college there in the ’70s.
Rattle the saber loudly, and the armadilloes along with the pandas and goats will r-u-n-n-o-f-t.
One way to deal with this: have the base commanders there make all establishments in town off limits to active duty personnel. Given the number of them that have been on terrorist watch lists or are violent criminals, the troops must enact appropriate force protection measures.
That is, the number of illegal aliens.
Patriots may soon have to take matters into their Second Amendment-blessed hands.
That would not be patriotism, it would be insurrection against the constitution. The constitution says sanctuary states/cities have the right to do this. If you try to force them not to you’re a criminal.
It’s only insurrection if done by a Republican
Nope. It’s insurrection if done by anyone. The riots outside the Portland courthouse surely count as insurrection, and so did the CHAZ in Seattle. But in this case you are the one proposing insurrection, so it would be by a Republican.
The constitution doesn’t say ONE GODDAMN WORD about sanctuary cities or any of that other bullshit.
Sanctuary cities are protected by the tenth amendment. And the courts have upheld it for ~250 years.
You had to know sanctuary cities were going to come back
They never went anywhere. They’ve been operating continuously for decades.
I’m sure Homan will have plenty of orange jumpsuits that will fit the Supervisors……and maybe he can arrange for them to share a cell with one of the unlucky illegals who made the Supervisors’ stay at the Graybar Hotel possible.
If he tries that, he’s the one who’ll end up in prison. Or rather, the officers he sends to do his bidding, if they obey his illegal orders, will end up in prison.
Get this through your head: the constitution is squarely on the Supervisors’ side. They have the right to do this, and any attempt to punish them for it is the very opposite of patriotism. It makes you no better than the illegal aliens you so despise.
Everyone is technically guilty of multiple felonies, and public servants, being more aptly described as private criminals, more so than most. Selectively prosecute such uncooperative personages (for their many and unrelated crimes) and let them swing in the wind while they claim selective prosecution. The message will get out.
An IRS audit would finish most of them!
Meanwhile, the local sheriff will not comply with this anti-American BS.
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1866659148072620070