Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Cajon council approves resolution to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement; vote 3-2
Summary
After extended public comment and debate, the El Cajon City Council voted 3–2 to approve a resolution stating the city's intent to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement to the extent permissible and to seek indemnification from the U.S. Attorney General for city employees acting lawfully.
The El Cajon City Council on Feb. 11 approved a resolution declaring the city will "intend to comply with the enforcement of federal immigration law to the legal extent permissible," and asking federal authorities to "indemnify or defend" the city and its employees for assistance as permitted by law. The motion passed 3–2, with Councilmembers Gary Kendrick and Michelle Mitchell voting no.
Supporters of the resolution said the primary purpose is public safety: to remove violent criminals from the community. Councilmember Steve Goble described the measure as narrowly focused on "removing those that have committed violent criminal offenses," and said he proposed an amendment asking the U.S. Attorney General to provide legal protection for city employees cooperating with federal authorities when doing so complies with other law.
The council heard more than 40 members of the public before the vote. Speakers opposing the resolution warned of conflicts with California law (SB 54), risks to community trust and public safety if immigrant residents avoid reporting crimes or seeking medical care, and potential civil-rights problems under recent federal directives they described. Patricia Mondragon of Alliance San Diego and several other commenters urged a no vote, saying the resolution was unnecessary and politically motivated. Other residents, including members of Restore San Diego and local residents who said they had been victims of violent crime, urged passage to empower local police to cooperate with federal authorities to remove violent offenders.
City staff and the city attorney answered procedural and legal questions during council discussion. The city attorney noted that SB 54 has been litigated in federal court and that Ninth Circuit precedent has upheld SB 54 in California in certain respects; the attorney described the legal landscape as complex but said the council had authority to state policy positions. Council discussion returned repeatedly to two points: (1) whether the resolution would change day-to-day police procedures immediately (staff said it would not), and (2) whether asking federal indemnification would in effect invite litigation over conflicts between state and federal law.
Mayor Bill Wells, who moved to approve the resolution, said the measure was about protecting residents and supporting officers who help remove violent criminals. After the motion passed 3–2, council members Kendrick and Mitchell registered their opposition on the record.
The resolution instructs staff to transmit copies to federal and state officials named in the document and includes a clause seeking U.S. Department of Justice assistance for indemnification/defense for city employees acting lawfully while cooperating with federal immigration enforcement "as permitted by law." The council did not adopt any separate local ordinances changing police procedures; staff said day-to-day operations would remain the same unless and until specific policy or legal changes are implemented.
The council did not vote on changes to SB 54 (state law); councilmembers and public commenters referenced SB 54 repeatedly during testimony and discussion.
