City of Sacramento Proposes Toothless Resolution to Ban Immigration Enforcement on City Owned Properties

The City of Sacramento has been a Sanctuary City since 1985, courtesy of former Mayor Anne Rudin. But that’s not good enough for a group of Sacramento Woodstock relics who are demanding the Mayor and City Council do more to get ICE officers out of the Capitol City.

City sanctuary status was reaffirmed by the brave Mayor and council members in January of 2025.

In January 2026, the City Council unanimously updated its anti-ICE immigration enforcement policies in response to increased federal enforcement under the Trump administration. This included “reaffirming” protections for immigrants, free speech rights for protesters, and limits on local assistance with ICE. This really wasn’t an update at all, just a reaffirmation of their existing policy.

California passed Senate Bill 54 in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, which unconstitutionally prohibits local police departments and sheriffs’ deputies from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and enforcing federal immigration laws. This law led to cities attempting to beef up ant-immigration enforcement policies.

Council members Mai Vang, Eric Guerra, and Karina Talamantes sponsored a separate, more specific resolution, which now targets the use of city property. It directs the City Manager to develop a policy banning ICE and other federal officials from using city properties for “civil immigration-enforcement activities.”

Sacramento’s numpty officials are signaling their virtue by boosting this policy. The Sacramento Law & Legislation Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to forward a council resolution.

“Immigrant communities are at the heart of Sacramento’s culture and commerce,” said Mayor Kevin McCarty. “We will continue to stand up for these communities and work to protect their safety and security.”

Note he did not say illegal immigrants – he’s conflating the two.

“Since 1985, Sacramento has been a self-designated sanctuary city, and I’m proud those same values are reflected today, 40 years later,” said Mayor Pro Tem Eric Guerra. “With this and state law, Sacramento police officers are prohibited from asking for immigration status or assisting in immigration enforcement. Sacramento will not turn its back on the community.”

What community? Those in the country legally or illegally?

The City reported this action came after more than a dozen public commenters urged the committee to move faster and to add “binding safeguards” — including a data-sanctuary policy, explicit prohibitions on police department participation in joint task forces with federal immigration authorities, clear signage, reporting requirements and civil penalties for violations.

The City cannot legally impose explicit prohibitions on police department participation in joint task forces with federal immigration authorities.

“Immediate action from the city is needed to protect the constitutional rights of the people who live and work here,” said Rhonda Rios Kravitz of the Sacramento Immigration Coalition, who testified in support of the proposal and asked the council to require the city to post clear signage, keep records of incidents, and direct employees to report attempted uses of city property for immigration enforcement. Jim Gonzales, chair of the Latino Economic Council, told the committee Sacramento must “control where the city controls its own property” so it “doesn’t become staging areas for ICE.”

Are they talking about all immigrants or protecting illegal immigrants?

Several speakers sought broader measures than the resolution as written. Moiz Mir of the Asian American Liberation Network said community engagement has been extensive — he cited the Jan. 27 council meeting and hundreds of submitted e-comments — and alleged that the Sacramento Police Department earlier shared license-plate reader data with out-of-state agencies until June 2024. “We are demanding that you stop harming us,” another speaker said, accusing the police department of aligning with federal enforcement while harm continues, City Express reported.

“We are demanding that you stop harming us.” Who is the city harming?

Council members acknowledged the urgency and the range of questions raised during testimony. Chairwoman Caity Maple said the committee heard a “sense of urgency” and requested staff provide additional information to the full council about mask-rule court decisions, how the city’s participation in the joint terrorism task force interacts with data sharing, and the status of policing and protest responses at the John Moss Building. “I’d love that information to come to the full council,” Chairwoman Maple said.

Chairwoman Maple should note that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just issued an injunction blocking enforcement of California’s laws targeting federal ICE agents, requiring them to “unmask” and display visible name and badge number. A three judge panel in the 9th Circuit agreed with the Trump administration that the California law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal officers’ duties.

This is a resolution, not a binding ordinance, so it has limited enforcement power. It’s just more virtue signaling by feckless council members who could have told the protesting Woodstock relics that the city already has anti-ICE immigration policy in place, and cannot legally impose or enforce any more without violating federal law. 

While Sacramento can direct its own property and employees not to facilitate ICE civil operations, it cannot create “no-go” zones for federal agents enforcing the law.