Last summer, an El Cajon City Council member asked California Attorney General Rob Bonta a question: Can our police officers conduct welfare checks on unaccompanied children using information from federal authorities?
The answer should have been yes. Instead, the attorney general’s office warned that even confirming a child’s location to federal officials could violate SB 54 — the state law that limits local cooperation with immigration enforcement. In other words, checking on a child who may be in danger could land our officers on the wrong side of California law.
The city of El Cajon is caught between a state government building an elaborate legal wall between local police and federal immigration authorities, and an obligation to follow federal criminal law that conflicts with those same state policies.
We are a city of approximately 106,000 residents trying to keep our residents safe and obeying the law – all the law.
DHS CALLS RAPE OF AUTISTIC TEEN ‘MOST HORRIBLE WE HAVE SEEN’ AS ICE DETAINER TEST CALIFORNIA LAWS SANCTUARY TEST
California’s government makes it a difficult choice for police to follow state or federal law. (San Pablo Police Department)
So today we’re asking Bonta to answer a question the state has thus far avoided: Does California’s policy violate 8 USC § 1324, the federal statute that makes it a crime to encourage or entice someone to unlawfully reside in the United States? Our letter makes the case that California’s sanctuary laws – which limit our police’s ability to follow federal law – do just that.
It’s not a new question. We sent the Attorney General’s office a letter in December 2024 asking questions about the limits of SB 54. The response cited the court’s opinions but did not address our core concern that conflicts between state and federal laws leave cities like ours in the middle. Subsequently, in February 2025, our City Council passed a resolution stating our intent to comply with federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Consider this confusion from a police officer’s perspective. SB 54 says our agents cannot inquire about immigration status, fulfill ICE detainer requests without a court order, and cannot use municipal resources to assist with federal immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has indicated that officials who obstruct federal immigration operations could be prosecuted. Our officers did not sign up to be referees (or punching bags) in a fight between Sacramento and Washington.
The ambiguity has implications beyond law enforcement. When the state tells us that a welfare check on a child – who may have been trafficked or abandoned – could violate SB 54 because it could lead to information being shared with federal authorities, something has gone wrong. Public safety should trump a clearance slip from the attorney general’s office.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
The Ninth Circuit upheld SB 54 in 2019 against another federal challenge that never addressed Section 1324. The legal question we ask is new and deserves an answer.
When lawmakers passed SB 54 and related bills, they stated the goal was to ensure residents could live and work “without fear of deportation.” And government officials repeatedly cite the economic contributions of undocumented workers as a reason to protect them from enforcement. But when a state openly pursues a strategy to help people remain in the country unlawfully, it raises a serious question under federal law.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
El Cajon is one of the most diverse cities in San Diego County; approximately 30% of our residents are Spanish and another 30% have their origins in the Middle East. We are a city built by immigrants, and nothing we ask will change that. We ask the state to tell us clearly how to follow the law when the law seems to contradict itself. Our officers, city employees and residents deserve that.
We have asked politely more than once. We would appreciate a genuine answer.
