San Diego County’s Super Sanctuary Policy: Balancing Local Resistance and Federal Immigration Enforcement

San Diego County defies federal immigration enforcement with new “super sanctuary” policy, sparking tension between local officials and ICE.

At a Glance

San Diego County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to limit cooperation with ICE on civil immigration matters
Sheriff Kelly Martinez opposes the resolution, stating her office will continue to follow state law
The policy aims to go beyond the 2017 California Values Act, restricting state and local cooperation on immigration
Critics argue the policy endangers community safety, while supporters claim it promotes trust and public safety
The resolution is part of a broader effort to “Trump-proof” the state against federal immigration enforcement

San Diego County Takes Bold Stance on Immigration Enforcement

San Diego County has taken a significant step in the ongoing immigration debate by declaring itself a “super sanctuary.” The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution with a 3-1 vote, led by Chair Nora Vargas, to restrict county agencies from cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement. This move aims to limit collaboration with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) on deportation operations, directly opposing federal demands for stricter illegal immigration management.

The resolution prevents county agencies from assisting ICE on civil immigration matters but does not extend to criminal investigations. This policy shift goes beyond the 2017 California Values Act, which already restricted state and local cooperation on immigration matters. The Board’s decision includes a directive for a report on past cooperation with federal immigration authorities and recommendations for future policy.

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 State Law Compliance

Despite the Board’s decision, San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez has openly opposed the resolution. She stated that the Sheriff’s Office will continue to follow state law, which already limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This stance has created tension between local officials and highlights the complex nature of immigration enforcement at different levels of government.

“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

Sheriff Martinez emphasized her commitment to the community’s well-being while maintaining compliance with state laws. The sheriff’s department has already taken steps to limit ICE involvement, such as no longer allowing ICE interviews in jails since 2022.

Diverging Views on Public Safety and Community Trust

Supporters of the resolution argue that cooperation with federal immigration authorities harms community trust and public safety by deterring undocumented individuals from seeking help. Board Chairwoman Nora Vargas emphasized that the policy is designed to focus local resources on addressing the county’s most urgent needs while protecting families and promoting community trust.

“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

However, critics of the policy, including Supervisor Jim Desmond who cast the lone dissenting vote, argue that it endangers community safety. They contend that limiting cooperation with federal authorities could impede agencies from working together effectively to ensure everyone’s safety, including immigrants already in the community.

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 Response

San Diego County’s “super sanctuary” policy is part of a larger trend seen in cities like Denver and Boston, where local resistance to federal deportation directives has raised complex questions about the balance of state and federal authority in immigration enforcement. The resolution is viewed as an effort to “Trump-proof” the state against potential changes in federal immigration policies.

The county is also allocating $5 million to provide legal assistance to illegal aliens facing deportation, further demonstrating its commitment to protecting undocumented residents. However, this stance has drawn criticism from figures like Rep. Darrell Issa and incoming border czar Tom Homan, who warn against crossing legal boundaries regarding immigration enforcement.

As tensions rise between local and federal authorities, the implementation of San Diego County’s “super sanctuary” policy will likely continue to be a contentious issue, with potential legal and political ramifications in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement.