California Sanctuary Policies Solicit, Encourage, and Induce Illegal Aliens to Reside in California ‘Without Fear of Deportation’

At the heart of California’s non-existing illegal immigrant enforcement is Senate Bill 54, which now prohibits local police departments and sheriffs’ deputies from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and enforcing federal immigration laws. But that law conflicts with federal law and federal immigration rules.

California is a “sanctuary state” thanks to Assembly and Senate Democrats and former Gov. Jerry Brown who signed Senate Bill 54 by then-Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) in 2017.

This became a significant problem recently for El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells, when he asked the California Department of Justice a simple question, “If a child in our city is being sex-trafficked by an illegal alien, can we at least do a welfare check on that child?” The answer he received was “No.”

The Attorney General’s office told Mayor Wells, “That would violate SB-54.” Wells posted his reply on X: “No workaround. No alternative. No explanation for how you’re supposed to save that child. That’s what California’s sanctuary law protects. Not the child. The trafficker.”

So Mayor Wells, together with the America First Policy Institute, sued the California Attorney General last month. And at the heart of that lawsuit is “What laws should our law enforcement officers follow?” Wells asked. “Should they follow the laws of the United States of America or the laws of the State of California?”

Thursday, the America First Policy Institute filed a petition for preliminary injunction on behalf of the city of El Cajon in its lawsuit against the California attorney general. “The preliminary injunction was filed to stop the constant damage sanctuary state policies are having on the community and the compromising position that law enforcement is put in each day.”

AFPI reminds us that “It is a felony to encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).

The petition for preliminary injunction says:

California’s sanctuary policy scheme contains provisions that encourage and induce illegal aliens to reside in the state by compelling law enforcement officers to turn a blind eye to knowing or suspected violations of federal immigration law (under the California Values Act (CVA” or
“SB 54”), the TRUST Act, and the TRUTH Act (together, “LEO Policies”)).

These LEO Policies complement another suite of California laws offering government benefits and protections to illegal aliens (the “Benefits Policies”), including drivers’ licenses and discounted tuition. Together, the
Benefits and LEO Policies (the “Sanctuary Policies”) encourage and induce illegal aliens to reside in California by extending many of the same benefits enjoyed by lawful residents, while the LEO Policies help ensure that encounters with local law enforcement do not lead to deportation.

When the Legislature passed SB 54 and Gov. Brown signed it into law knowing it was a violation of the U.S. Constitution, it created a standoff between state law and federal law. The preliminary injunction explains:

The City of El Cajon has brought this action to clarify what set of
laws members of the El Cajon Police Department are to follow. If Police
Department officers implement the LEO Policies, they will be compelled to engage in conduct that violates 8 U.S.C. § 1324 by encouraging and inducing illegal aliens to reside in the United States in violation of law, thereby exposing both the officers and the City to potential criminal enforcement, civil liability, employment-related consequences, and other federal penalties. Conversely, if the City and its officers comply with federal immigration law, they face enforcement actions and penalties threatened by the California Attorney General under California’s sanctuary statutes. This immediate and irreconcilable conflict between state and federal law necessitates preliminary injunctive relief.

And:

The Sanctuary Policies—of which the LEO Policies are a part—solicit, encourage, and induce illegal aliens to reside in California and facilitate their residency here “without fear of deportation.”

“California has created a legal quagmire for law enforcement officers simply trying to follow the law and protect their communities,” said AFPI’s Vice Chair of Litigation Richard Lawson. “When the city of El Cajon asked the California Attorney General if it would violate state law to use information provided by the federal government to identify a potential child victim of human trafficking, it was told ‘probably.’

“This confusion stems from California’s unlawful desire to bolster its economy with the fruits of illegal labor, as 1 in 10 workers are believed to be residing in the state unlawfully. In full violation of federal criminal law, California encourages illegal immigrants to settle in the state by providing them with benefits like in-state state tuition and driver’s licenses. These sanctuary policies also impose restrictions on law enforcement cooperation with immigration officials, which is why the Attorney General suggested that officers should not respond when ICE has information on potential child trafficking.

“California’s sanctuary policies don’t just violate common sense, they are knowing violations of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. No officer should be placed in a position of having to decide between following state law or federal criminal law.”

The Globe will update this important case.