Central California cities are pursuing sanctuary policies. Here's what that means
In the Spotlight is a Fresno Bee series that digs into the high-profile local issues that readers care most about. Story idea? Email tips@fresnobee.com.
In the Central Valley, multiple municipalities are considering becoming sanctuaries to undocumented immigrants as the federal government pursues mass deportations.
Though there is no single definition for these so-called sanctuary cities, they generally entail cities that pledge to welcome immigrants and prevent their local law enforcement from aiding in federal deportation efforts.
But cities such as Madera and Kerman looking to make statements of public support for undocumented immigrants are also considering the possible repercussions. Local leaders are treading lightly on how they word official resolutions.
The Trump administration already ordered a pause on federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The president's team has also sued officials in Chicago, Illinois, arguing that the city's sanctuary policies block federal immigration enforcement operations.
Trump took similar actions during the his first term. Those attempts failed in federal courts, but his new barrage of directives have created many unknowns for cities wondering how they can advocate for their undocumented residents.
'It's a fluid situation,' Madera City Manager Arnoldo Rodriguez told council members Wednesday. 'It seems like some of these rules are changing daily, and we're attempting our best to keep up with them.'
Sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter centered around Latino issues in California.
Livingston, in Merced County, became the Central Valley's first sanctuary city in 2017. The city of Huron, in Fresno County, became the second last month.
Both cities did so through nonbinding resolutions rather than ordinances, which are generally reserved for more permanent government rulings.
In Tulare County, the Lindsay City Council decided before Trump's inauguration to discuss sanctuary status at a future date.
Some residents in Kerman and Madera want their lawmakers to take stances in support of immigrants. Some have called for a resolution that at least communicates that immigrants are valued, while others want a declaration of sanctuary status.
But for local officials, there is too much uncertainty for sanctuary cities this early in Trump's presidency. In Madera, where about 25% of residents live below the poverty line, officials considered that the city currently has access to millions of dollars in federal funding.
Madera City Attorney Shannon Chaffin said a lot has changed since Trump's first failed attempts at withholding federal funding from sanctuary cities.
'The greatest risk is declaring yourself a sanctuary city and attempting to thwart federal enforcement operations,' he told the council. 'You will run into problems, and California is on the radar.'
Madera councilmembers will instead consider a resolution that identifies Madera as a place of 'unity' that is 'welcoming' to all. In Kerman, councilmembers will consider a resolution that informs residents that local police do not enforce federal immigration laws.
Generally, a sanctuary city is a jurisdiction — a city, county or state — that decides 'it will not use its resources to engage in federal immigration enforcement,' said Bill Hing, professor of law and migration studies at the University of San Francisco.
'The idea of sanctuary jurisdictions is that you do your work, but you don't ask about immigration status,' said Hing, who is also the founder of the nonprofit Immigrant Legal Resource Center. This is so that, when the federal government inquiries about someone's immigration status, 'you don't know anything, then you just say you don't know anything.'
Another main part of sanctuary ordinances is not contacting federal officials even when a jurisdiction knows someone is undocumented.
Technically, local jurisdictions in California that don't have sanctuary ordinances are still subject to the state's sanctuary law that took effect in 2018. Known as the California Values Act, it prohibits local police from asking for someone's immigration status or using local resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement.
There are exceptions in sanctuary cities and state law that allow officials to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement iflocal law enforcement detains an undocumented immigrant charged with serious violent crimes, including murder, sexual assault and kidnapping, Hing said.
Niels Frenzen, a professor at the USC Gould School of Law, said the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation routinely turns non-citizens with serious felony convictions over to ICE.
'So sanctuary does not protect non-citizens with serious felony convictions,' he said.
Sanctuary cities also do not stop federal immigration agents from carrying out enforcement operations.
Hing said that the term sanctuary can be misleading because it carries a social or religious connotation, such as churches that allow undocumented immigrants to seek refuge.
'It's not about standing guard at the border of Merced and saying ICE cannot come in here,' he said. 'That's not ever required of a sanctuary ordinance.'
Both law professors also disputed the claim that sanctuary cities encourage crime, citing that several studies have provided empirical evidence for the opposite. Hing said sanctuary ordinances enhance public safety because they allow all residents, regardless of immigration status, to trust that they can call local police for help.
'The main reason for these ordinances is to make sure that victims and witnesses to crime actually come forward,' he said. 'If those witnesses or victims are from an immigrant community and they're worried that, 'If I report this I'm going to get deported because they're going to report me to ICE,' they won't come forward.'
During his first term, Trump tried to block federal funding to sanctuary cities by conditioning federal funds with compliance, Hing said.
Hing said federal courts have ruled that federal funding can have conditions, but that those conditions have to be included in legislation passed by Congress. For example, Hing said, federal highway funds require jurisdictions to enforce the federal speed limit.
This time around, Hing said, the Trump administration could push Congress to approve amendments to federal grant legislation that include conditions against sanctuary cities.
The federal government's attempts to penalize sanctuary cities are setting the stage for years of legal battles.
'I expect that blue states and blue municipalities and counties will be on the target list,' Frenzen said.
However, Trump's crackdown on sanctuary cities could weigh against the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Frenzen said. Using the 'anti-commandeering' doctrine, the Supreme Court has ruled that 'the federal government cannot commandeer states, cannot use state resources, for things that the federal government wants them to do,' he said.
The Supreme Court cited the 10th Amendment when it struck down a requirement in the Affordable Care Act in 2012.
'The anti-commandeering statute doesn't mean that Trump isn't going to sue,' Frenzen said, 'but it doesn't mean that a city is going to lose.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Still Planning to Attend NATO Summit
President Trump still plans to attend a NATO summit in The Hague this week, a senior administration official said. He will leave Washington on Tuesday morning and arrive late in the evening in the Netherlands, the official said.
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Perilous hour': World reacts after U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites
Israel hailed President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites as an action that would "deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons." But the United Nations and many countries around the world called for swift de-escalation while others criticized the attacks. Trump said that the strikes June 22 "totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities and that Iran had to "make peace" or face more, "far greater" attacks. In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned of "everlasting consequences." A recorded statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump for taking what he described as a "bold decision" that "will change history." The reaction from other world quarters was more restrained and called for Iran to return to the negotiating table. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged that Iran's nuclear program was a "grave threat to international security." He also said a "diplomatic solution" was needed to "end the crisis." Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said it was "crucial" there be "a quick de-escalation of the conflict." The European Union's top foreign policy official, Kaja Kallas, urged "all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation." There were stronger words from longtime U.S. adversaries Venezuela and Cuba. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel characterized the U.S. bombing as a "dangerous escalation" that "seriously violates the U.N. charter and international law and plunges humanity into a crisis with irreversible consequences." Yvan Gil, Venezuela's foreign minister, said his country "firmly and categorically condemns the bombing." U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed" by the use of U.S. force on Iran. "There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control − with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world," Guterres said in a statement. "At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace." Trump's decision to directly attack Iran alongside Israel comes more than a week after Israel started attacking Iran with a view to destroying its nuclear enrichment facilities. He did so without congressional authorization. 40,000 reasons to worry: U.S. troops in Middle East vulnerable to counterattack There has been been no independent assessment of Trump's assertion that U.S. bombers destroyed Iran's three major nuclear sites at complexes in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. "Now that the strikes have come, Tehran faces a stark dilemma: retaliate and risk a wider war, or pause to consolidate at home," said Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow in Middle East security at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank that specializes in military affairs.
Atlantic
29 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
