Sanctuaries? No. Norcal counties pledge ICE cooperation

The California backlash to President Donald Trump’s immigration policy ends somewhere north of Sacramento – and two deep-red county boards have voted to make their views perfectly clear: Tehama and Siskiyou County are not a “sanctuary.”

Tehama’s board of supervisors narrowly passed a resolution earlier this month that may be the first of its kind in California. Up on the Oregon border, Siskiyou quickly followed its lead with a resolution approved Tuesday. And the county between them, Shasta, is likely to consider the same.

These counties didn’t just buck the California trend of standing up to Trump by declaring local sanctuary status – or even revoke that status as Florida’s Miami-Dade County did earlier this month.

They went out of the way to formally vote they were never sanctuaries to begin with.

With Tehama leading and others following, “I’m sure you’re going to see a whole bunch fall right in line,” said local Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, likening the non-sanctuary resolutions to the State of Jefferson push, an ongoing effort to gain this conservative region independent statehood.

Local politicians said they weren’t familiar with any other California counties that had taken non-sanctuary votes before Tehama, and several immigrant-rights organizations interviewed by the Record Searchlight said the same.

California could become a sanctuary state. What that means

Other California jurisdictions, including Fresno, have unofficially said they’re not sanctuaries. And last Tuesday, the city council in ag-dominated Salinas narrowly turned down a proposal to declare sanctuary status. But outright non-sanctuary resolutions are a potential first.

“Very few jurisdictions are passing resolutions with this kind of language. In fact, the momentum is entirely in the other direction,” said Angélica Salceda, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. “A number of California counties have reaffirmed or passed new policies that promote fair policing and keep immigrant communities safer, and that number keeps growing.”

The supervisor who introduced Tehama’s resolution said it’s about money.

Citing fears the county would lose crucial federal funds because of Trump’s executive order to punish sanctuary jurisdictions, Supervisor Bob Williams introduced his resolution after finding out that Tehama had wound up on a conservative political action committee’s sanctuary list.

Some lists consider all California counties sanctuaries, but the Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC specifically naming Tehama County – and not others – seemed odd. While agriculture is a leading industry here and the population is 24 percent Hispanic, Trump won a resounding 65 percent of the presidential vote.

Williams believes the misunderstanding about his county’s stance on illegal immigration stems from capacity releases at the jail that must have been mistaken for amnesty.

Like many tough-on-crime rural counties, Tehama has struggled to keep its criminals locked up on a tight budget. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can ask local jails to hold someone for them, it’s only mandatory if they actually get a warrant. That means a crammed jail can cause deputies to grudgingly release undocumented immigrants.

“We didn’t even know we were a sanctuary county,” Williams said. “We don’t have any room at the jail. We’re full of felons, and so we can’t hold somebody on a minor offense just because they’re an illegal alien.”

After talking to Williams, Supervisor Les Baugh said he plans to propose an agenda item at the upcoming Shasta County board meeting for the following week.

“This is uncharted territory, so it’s something we’d have to approach with a little more information,” Shasta County Supervisor Mary Rickert said.

Not every jurisdiction in the area is rushing into the fray.

Redding, the region’s hub city, never got on the PAC’s sanctuary list – probably because the county, not city, runs the local jail and deals with federal immigration officials. And since the city never declared sanctuary status, City Manager Kurt Starman said “there is no need for a resolution.”

But for Baugh, there is. And it’s more than the money – there also isn’t “anything logical or acceptable” in flouting federal law, he said.

“We are certainly not a sanctuary county, and I think it’s important that we differentiate ourselves from California’s movement (toward that),” Baugh said. “California seems intent on running headlong into a legal battle with the federal government, and that doesn’t make any sense.”

But Salceda, with the ACLU, said plenty of other jurisdictions that offer “sanctuary” are using federal law to support their position.

“Trump may hope that cities and counties buckle under his threat, but local government and law enforcement officials have been preparing to defend their policies on how best to protect public safety in their communities,” she said.

Resolutions like Tehama’s can alienate people based on their race or legal-immigrant status, and cooperation with federal officials can open local jurisdictions up to liability, other immigration advocates argue.

“I think it is concerning, because it sends a message to immigrants and immigrant families that they might not be welcome in that particular place,” National Immigration Law Center Senior Staff Attorney Shiu-Ming Cheer said. “The other reason we’ve been seeing so many places in California issue pro-immigrant statements or resolutions is because they recognize that that tends to be better overall for their particular area, both economically but also socially.”

And Laura Vazquez, program manager for immigration at Washington, D.C.-based National Council of La Raza, said some counties actually see sanctuary policies as legal protection from being named in lawsuits centering on ICE detainers.

“Counties are saying, ‘We’re going to be on the hook for these practices, not federal agents who are requesting us to hold individuals,’” she said.

Two Tehama supervisors abstained from the vote, with one, Candy Carlson, saying the county would have to be “very, very careful” not to single people out by race, ethnicity or religion.

“I want to make very clear that that is not the intention of this board,” she said. “(It’s) looking at dollars that, right now, we probably could not function without.”

Williams rejected the idea that the resolution had anything to do with race, and said he doesn’t believe it will alienate constituents.

“Those who are held in custody are based on the severity of the crime, regardless of immigration status. This has nothing to do with legal immigrants or minorities who don't break the law,” he said. “It has everything to do with criminals, again, regardless of race.”

The new resolution may not be enough to get Tehama off the list, though.

Salvi, with the Ohio PAC, said he’ll wait for the county to “show me the numbers.” Plenty of other jurisdictions have asked to get off Salvi’s list since Trump announced his executive order, but he said intentions aren’t enough.

“If they’re doing it to get off these lists … that’s why I’m somewhat reluctant to do so until I see actual positive behavior,” Salvi said, noting that some unconfirmed things he’s read about Tehama County make him question its commitment to non-sanctuary status. “What I will probably do on the list is make a notation … It’s easy to say something, but the proof is in the pudding.”

There’s no official government list of sanctuary jurisdictions, and “people are sending my list to the Trump administration,” Salvi said, and to John Kelly, the United States Department of Homeland Security secretary.

Some at Tehama County’s meeting voiced concern the resolution would – ironically – translate to punishment from immigration-friendly state politicians instead of federal ones. But Williams said it’s still important to declare the county’s dedication to federal law.

“You can worry about retaliation from Sacramento,” he said, “or you can worry about retaliation from Washington, D.C.”