After a lengthy and ionate debate Tuesday, the El Cajon City Council voted 3-2 to a resolution that asserted the city’s commitment to comply with the enforcement of federal immigration law, a move some opponents decried as racist but ers deemed necessary for public safety.
Debate over the resolution drew national attention and exposed divisions in the community and on the council itself. Council had considered versions of it at their two previous meetings and had grappled with wording to find common ground and address community concerns before Tuesday’s split vote.
After two hours of public comment on the issue, discussion among council was relatively brief. Mayor Bills Wells, who had proposed the original motion in January, said he was surprised it had caused such turmoil in the city.
“This should have been a no-brainer,” Wells said, adding that the resolution was about local police helping to keep the city safe from violent criminals. “It’s my job to do everything I can to protect the people of El Cajon.”
Wells and Councilmember Steve Goble worked together on the latest resolution, after having been at odds on the wording of a previous version last month.
Much of the debate has centered on the role local law enforcement can play in enforcing immigration law at a time when President Trump has vowed to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
While the U.S. Justice Department has said federal law prohibits states and local actors from resisting, obstructing or failing to comply with immigration law, California state law restricts the role local law enforcement can play in assisting federal Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents.
Goble said he met with Wells after last month’s meeting, and the two found common ground in wanting to get undocumented migrants who had been convicted of violent crimes out of the city.
The sticking point was whether El Cajon police would be caught in the middle, Goble said.
The resolution he and Wells proposed states in part that the city would seek help from the U.S. attorney general to indemnify the city and police officers for assisting or cooperating with federal immigration authorities as permitted by state law.
“My position hasn’t changed,” Goble said. “It’s always been about public safety.”
The resolution also states that El Cajon is not a sanctuary city, a designation for cities that aim to protect undocumented immigrants by limiting their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The resolution also points to what it says are conflicting messages from the federal and state governments — a concern echoed by several speakers, including some who said the measure could cost the city state funding and others who worried not ing it could jeopardize federal funding.
Wells and Goble stressed that the resolution would not go beyond what already is permitted under the California state law known as Senate Bill 54.
That law lets police U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents if they arrest someone who had previously been convicted of committing an aggravated felony, had been deported and had returned illegally.
The proposed resolution was welcomed by community who saw it as focused specifically on removing violent criminals from the city. Opponents, however, saw a slippery slope and feared it could lead to racial profiling and the targeting of Latinos.
Councilmember Gary Kendrick, who along with Councilmember Michelle Metschel voted against the resolution, said the proposal had created unnecessary division and anxiety in the Latino community and could discouraging people from going to the police or seeking medical help.
“That’s not helping our community at all,” he said. “I represent everyone in the city, and I have to look out for everyone.”
Although Wells and other ers insisted it would focus only on violent criminals, many speakers opposed saw potentially far broader consequences.
“We’re talking about sending El Cajon residents to foreign concentration camps without trial,” one young woman said, referring to the relocation of migrants to a detention facility at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.
El Cajon resident Bob Collins, one of dozens of opponents, noted the resolution had caused widespread anxiety in the community.
“The action you’re going to take today is divisive,” he said. “It’s not inclusive. And to the immigrant community, perception is reality. It’s open season on them again.”
Just over 40 speakers appeared before the council, with slightly more speaking in opposition. With audience at times disrupting speakers, Mayor Bill Wells twice asked for a five-minute break and left the room after asking people to calm down.
Many ers of the resolution agreed with Wells that it was about public safety; one woman accused opponents of trying to protect violent criminals.
This was the third time the City Council had discussed a resolution about the role local police can play in enforcement of federal immigration laws.
An original resolution proposed by Wells also said the city intended to comply with federal immigration laws — but council at the Jan. 14 meeting were swayed by the concerns of 10 speakers and asked city staff to returned with a revised resolution.
The revised resolution was heard at the council’s Jan. 28 meeting. By then, activists had rallied to oppose the proposal, and 80 people had signed up to speak at the packed meeting.
At that meeting, neither Wells’ original motion nor an alternative one proposed on the spot by Goble were ed. And alternative proposed by Metschel and Kendrick was not voted on.
Several cities and counties in California, including in San Diego County, have declared themselves sanctuary cities, but El Cajon is not alone in declaring the opposite. In January, the Huntington Beach City Council declared it was “a non-sanctuary city for illegal immigration for the prevention of crime.”
