Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to curb sheriff cooperation with ICE during extended public comment
Summary
Dozens of residents, clergy and advocates urged the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to limit local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to explicitly include the sheriff in a pending sanctuary‑style ordinance, citing fears about warrantless transfers and family separations.
Dozens of residents and advocates addressed the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors during public comment on April 28, urging the board to stop unneeded cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to explicitly bind the sheriff’s office to a pending non‑collaboration ordinance.
Speakers during a prolonged public‑comment period said local transfers to ICE have put immigrant families at risk and discouraged community members from reporting crimes. Mia Sodi Tanekora, staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told the board that “ICE has become a lawless agency” and argued that local officials are effectively inviting ICE to Sonoma when they cooperate without judicial warrants. Renee Saucedo of the Sonoma County Sanctuary Coalition asked the board to require the sheriff to refuse transfers except when a judicial warrant is presented.
Other commentors — including clergy, library officials and longtime residents — described heightened fear in immigrant communities, cited cases of detainee deaths in ICE custody and pressed the board to use its influence with the sheriff or adopt a binding resolution. Several speakers noted California law (SB 54, the California Values Act) and specific code references raised in their testimony and urged the board to close perceived loopholes in the county’s existing ordinance so local policy could be enforced.
Board members responded publicly to the comments. Supervisor Hopkins thanked speakers and said staff had researched stronger ordinances; she cautioned that the board’s legal authority over the sheriff’s office is limited and warned that going beyond legal powers could invite costly litigation. Hopkins said the board had earmarked $1.5 million in services for undocumented and immigrant residents and offered to investigate comparably stronger policies used by other jurisdictions.
The board did not take immediate ordinance action during public comment. Staff and supervisors indicated they would continue examining legal options and implementation steps, and speakers asked the board to use its bully pulpit and formal resolutions to press the sheriff to limit transfers absent judicial warrants. The board scheduled follow‑up conversations and noted a Truth Act forum on May 12.
