Amid fears and recent reports of federal immigration authorities targeting undocumented immigrants in local communities, law enforcement leaders and public officials throughout the South Valley have attempted to reassure their communities that residents are safe from local action.
Sheriffs throughout California have pledged to support all local residents and to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities, citing a state law that prevents direct cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and will forbid immigration agents from using county personnel, property or databases without a federal warrant.
San Benito County Sheriff Eric Taylor and Hollister Police Chief Carlos Reynoso have made statements to that effect in recent days.
“I wanted to share this message with our community to remind everyone and make sure there has been no change in the Hollister Police Department procedures,” Reynoso said in a Jan. 24 statement. “The Hollister Police Department does not enforce federal law and we do not inquire the legal status of residents we communicate with.
“Our priority is the public safety of our community and every person who lives or visits here. We want any victim or witness of a crime to feel comfortable communicating with us without fear of being arrested for their legal status.”
Santa Clara County Sheriff Bob Jonsen echoed those reassurances.
“The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office has a primary responsibility to protect all residents, regardless of immigration status,” the department said in a statement. “The Sheriff’s Office does not inquire about a person’s immigration status and will not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain individuals solely for immigration enforcement.”
“As required by California Senate Bill 54, local law enforcement in Santa Clara County will not assist with federal immigration enforcement unless there is a serious criminal threat. As a sanctuary jurisdiction, we ensure that those in our custody are not subjected to ICE actions.”
Jonsen added: “The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office is deeply committed to creating a secure and welcoming environment for every resident.”
“I understand that the fear of immigration enforcement can hinder trust and cooperation with local law enforcement,” Jonsen said, according to CalMatters. “That’s why my priority is public safety for all, and as an organization we believe that by not inquiring about an individual’s immigration status, or collaborating with ICE, we can build stronger, more trusting relationships within our community.”
“We want all residents to feel comfortable reporting crimes, seeking assistance, or interacting with our office without the fear of immigration-related repercussions,” he said. “Our policies are intentionally designed to safeguard the well-being of our community, and we remain steadfast in upholding these values.”
The remarks come as President Donald Trump and his administration have already begun acting on his campaign promise to conduct widespread federal enforcement action to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
The Morgan Hill Police Department and city officials offered similar sentiments. In a Jan. 24 statement, MHPD also cited SB 54 as limiting local officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.
“Amid ongoing national discussions about immigration, we want to reaffirm our commitment to supporting all community members, regardless of immigration status,” says the statement from MHPD, which was also released in Spanish. “The City of Morgan Hill and the Morgan Hill Police Department are steadfast in their dedication to protecting the safety, well-being and dignity of everyone who calls our city home.
“The primary mission of the Morgan Hill Police Department is to protect and serve our community by addressing local public safety concerns. We are not involved in enforcing federal immigration laws, as this is outside the scope of our duties and could detract from our focus on local crime prevention, traffic enforcement, and community engagement.”
The City of Gilroy made similar reassurances, and emphasized that the city will continue to seek to equitably provide all available public services to every resident of Gilroy.
“Please know, the City of Gilroy will continue to provide essential services to all, including emergency services. An individual’s immigration status does not play any part in how we treat you or how we serve you. We will not ask about your immigration status, ever,” the city said in a statement.
“We also want to assure you that the Gilroy Police Department is focused on keeping our community safe and does not participate in enforcement of federal immigration laws. Our local law enforcement officers are here to serve every member of this community, regardless of immigration status.”
This story includes reporting from CalMatters.
Dear Friends,
If I swear to uphold the Constitution, can I choose which parts of it to which I agree, or have I sworn to uphold all of it? Can local elected officials nullify those parts of the Constitution to which they disagree? What does history teach us? Did the original 13 States ratify all of the Constitution, or only parts of it? Did subsequent States? California in 1850–all of the Constitution, or just the parts with which they agreed? Nullifiers in the State of South Carolina were shown by President Jackson, and taught by Senator Webster, what it means to be a nation of laws.
So, today, is it “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR, UNITED STATES OF CALIFORNIA?”
Under our federal Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps contrary inferior law, e.g., County ordinances, locals decisions to nullify federal law.
During debate on the South Carolina attempt at nullification of federal law, Senator Daniel Webster, in his famous Second Reply to Senator Hayne, gave his immortal position defending the action of the federal government.
When Arkansas elected officials attempted to thwart federal law regarding desegregation, and the Arkansas Governor called out the National Guard to help prevent black school children from attending public school, on 9-5-1957 President Eisenhower invoked the power of the federal government, saying to Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, “The only assurance I can give you is that the Federal Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal means at my command.”
President Eisenhower emphatically said that we must uphold federal law against those who seek to nullify it.
“You and other state officials—-as well as the National Guard which, of course, is uniformed, armed and partially sustained by the Government—will, I am sure, give full cooperation to the United States District Court.”
signed Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He sent Army Airborne troops to back-up his telegram to Arkansas’ nullifiers. And
despite local government opposition to desegregation, federal law prevailed.
Today we see California “nullifiers” like our Governor, Attorney General, and some municipal elected officials defying our Nation’s federal immigration law.
Are we the United States of America, or, the United States of California?
Will you please convey to all my friends in Hollister, Gilroy and Santa Clara County, and SBC, my prayer that they follow our Nation’s historic adherence to paramount federal law as seen in Webster’s famous Second Reply to Hayne, and in President Eisenhower’s telegram to the Governor of Arkansas, when South Carolina, and later Arkansas, tried to nullify our federal law. While the Governor, our Attorney General, and some municipal elected officials may disagree with our federal law, they must obey it regardless of their personal beliefs.
President Eisenhower said, what we must say to those who disagree with federal law, including County Supervisors in all California Counties, “When I became President, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So, too, have the Supervisors of the Counties of California, and municipal government leaders.
Thank you.
Joseph P. Thompson
Past-President, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn.
(408) 848-5506