s
s
Sections
Search
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, nearly 1.5 million people used their mobile devices to visit our sites.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Wow! You read a lot!
Reading enhances confidence, empathy, decision-making, and overall life satisfaction. Keep it up! Subscribe.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Oops, you're out of free articles.
Until next month, you can always look over someone's shoulder at the coffee shop.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, we posted 390 stories about the fire. And they were shared nearly 137,000 times.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Supporting the community that supports us.
Obviously you value quality local journalism. Thank you.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Oops, you're out of free articles.
We miss you already! (Subscriptions start at just 99 cents.)
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
X

The "Follow This Story" feature will notify you when any articles related to this story are posted.

When you follow a story, the next time a related article is published — it could be days, weeks or months — you'll receive an email informing you of the update.

If you no longer want to follow a story, click the "Unfollow" link on that story. There's also an "Unfollow" link in every email notification we send you.

This tool is available only to subscribers; please make sure you're logged in if you want to follow a story.

Login

X

Please note: This feature is available only to subscribers; make sure you're logged in if you want to follow a story.

LoginSubscribe

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities.

The threat of sanctions hasn’t deterred hundreds of cities, counties and states from California to Florida from limiting their participation in enforcement of federal immigration laws.

And the Trump administration has had little success in its attempts to impose any sanctions, just as it has been unable to force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.

When it comes to dreamers, the young immigrants who were brought here as children, we can barely keep up with the president’s many positions.

After ordering an end to a program that allows them to stay, he urged Congress to renew it, then imposed conditions that ensured its failure. His demands didn’t muster even 40 votes in a GOP-controlled Senate.

What is consistent is Trump’s bullying of immigrants.

So is the administration’s stubborn refusal to distinguish between dangerous criminals and millions of people who contribute to our economy and culture despite entering the U.S. without papers or staying after their visas expired — which is a civil, but not a criminal, violation.

That’s a primary reason why California and other jurisdictions are limiting their cooperating with ICE, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

With a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, followed by Attorney General Jeff Session’s harshly partisan speech Wednesday in Sacramento, the administration clearly is spoiling for a fight with California.

The lawsuit, which accuses California of unconstitutionally interfering with immigration enforcement, is hardly a surprise, though two weeks ago Trump mused about pulling ICE agents out of the state.

That came with a veiled insult for California law enforcement. Without ICE, he said, “you would have a crime mess like you’ve never seen in California.” He predicted that California would “beg” for ICE to return. On Wednesday, Sessions reversed course, trying to position the lawsuit as protection for local law enforcement.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s blunt reply: “What Jeff Sessions said is simply not true.”

For starters, California cannot stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws. Ongoing ICE arrests and business audits show that the state hasn’t blocked enforcement. Moreover, as Sessions no doubt knows, most California law enforcement agencies have long avoided participating in immigration enforcement, except in the pursuit of felons and violent criminals.

For some agencies, these policies date to the 1970s — and with good reason. Police need witnesses and victims to step forward and cooperate. They may not if police ask about their immigration status.

SB 54, one of three state laws targeted in the federal lawsuit, codified common practices and court rulings.

Despite Sessions’ claims, the law doesn’t prohibit California law enforcement officers from working with ICE agents, it doesn’t prohibit ICE agents from entering state prisons or local jails, and it doesn’t prohibit correctional agencies from turning serious offenders over for deportation. SB 54 does make it harder for the feds to expand their dragnet while sending the bill to state taxpayers.

The other laws targeted by Sessions subject ICE’s privately run detention centers to state inspection and prohibit employers from turning records over to ICE without a court order. Why? The centers are notorious for inhumane conditions, and some unscrupulous employers have called immigration to try to avoid paying employees.

Show Comment