Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
San Diego City Council condemns aggressive ICE tactics, authorizes city attorney to join litigation
Loading...
Summary
The San Diego City Council unanimously approved a resolution opposing allegedly aggressive and excessive federal immigration-enforcement tactics and authorized the city attorney to support litigation in Minnesota and Illinois; public commenters urged stronger operational limits on local cooperation with ICE.
The San Diego City Council voted unanimously on Feb. 2 to oppose what it called unnecessarily aggressive immigration‑enforcement tactics by federal agencies and to authorize the city attorney to support litigation challenging those tactics.
"These federal operations have created fear in our neighborhoods," Council Member Von Wilpert said in explaining the resolution’s intent, arguing that excessive federal tactics erode trust and divert local public‑safety resources. The resolution’s recitals refer to local and national incidents, including a May 2025 worksite enforcement action in South Park and recent fatal incidents in other jurisdictions.
The resolution directs the city attorney’s office to file or join amicus briefs and take other legal actions to support states and cities litigating federal conduct, and the council voted to authorize those steps. "No one should fear being pulled from their car at a school pick‑up or removed from a lawful immigration process without oversight," Council Member Moreno said, urging additional protective measures for families and children.
Public comment on the item was extensive. Numerous speakers from community organizations and residents urged the council to add specific, enforceable limits on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities—requests that included prohibiting San Diego Police Department (SDPD) assistance such as transporting residents for ICE, providing traffic control or perimeter security for civil immigration actions, and restricting federal access to city surveillance systems. "SB 54 says SDPD does not assist ICE or HSI, but clarity matters," speaker Jean Wong told the council, urging clear protocols for officers responding to calls where federal agents are present.
Other speakers asked the council to end contracts that allow federal agencies to access city systems, direct an unannounced audit of conditions at the Otay Mesa detention facility, and create or fund civil-rights legal capacity to pursue cases against federal agencies. Community groups and speakers described local incidents they said undermined trust and urged more concrete operational directives beyond a symbolic resolution.
City officials and the police department said SDPD’s posture is that local officers do not enforce federal immigration law and that officers respond to 911 calls when federal agents call for assistance; Lieutenant Cesar Jimenez, SDPD public information officer, said the department does not ask people about immigration status and that officers aim to de‑escalate when they respond. Council members and the city attorney’s office said additional legal and policy steps are under consideration, including the due‑process and safety ordinance that is moving toward a second reading after meet‑and‑confer.
After debate and public comment, Council Member Von Wilpert moved the resolution and it was seconded by Council Member Ilo/Guillera Rivera. The council passed the resolution unanimously (recorded 8–0 with Council President Lacava absent). The council also noted that the city attorney has filed or joined related legal actions and that further operational clarifications and potential ordinances are under discussion.
