Last summer, a member of the El Cajon City Council asked California Attorney General Rob Bonta a question: Can our police officers conduct welfare checks on unaccompanied children using information provided by federal authorities?
The answer should have been yes. Instead, the attorney general’s office warned that even confirming a child’s location to federal officials could violate SB 54 — the state law that limits local cooperation with immigration enforcement. In other words, checking on a kid who might be in danger could put our officers on the wrong side of California law.
The city of El Cajon is caught between a state government building an extensive legal wall between local police and federal immigration authorities, and an obligation to follow federal criminal law that conflicts with those same state policies.
We are a city of about 106,000 people trying to keep our residents safe and follow the law — all of the law.
That’s why today, we are asking Bonta to address a question the state has so far avoided: Do California’s sanctuary policies conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1324, the federal statute that makes it a felony to encourage or induce someone to reside in the United States unlawfully? Our letter lays out the case that California’s sanctuary laws — restricting the ability of our police to follow federal law — do exactly that.
It’s not a new question. We sent the attorney general’s office a letter in December 2024 asking about the boundaries of SB 54. The response cited court opinions but did not answer our core concern that conflict between state and federal law leaves cities like our stuck in the middle. Subsequently, in February 2025, our City Council passed a resolution that declared our intent to comply with federal immigration law to the legal extent permissible.
Consider this confusion from a patrol officer’s perspective. SB 54 says our officers cannot inquire about immigration status, cannot honor ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant and cannot use city resources to assist with federal immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has signaled that officials who obstruct federal immigration operations could face prosecution. Our officers didn’t sign up to be referees (or punching bags) in a fight between Sacramento and Washington.
The ambiguity has consequences beyond law enforcement. When the state tells us that a wellness check on a child — who may have been trafficked or abandoned — could violate SB 54 because it might result in sharing information with federal authorities, something has gone wrong. Public safety should trump a permission slip from the attorney general’s office.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The Ninth Circuit upheld SB 54 in 2019 against a different federal challenge that never addressed Section 1324. The legal question we’re raising is new, and it deserves a response.
When lawmakers passed SB 54 and related bills, they stated that the goal was to ensure residents could live and work “without fear of deportation.” And state officials repeatedly cite the economic contributions of undocumented workers as a reason to shield them from enforcement. But when a state openly pursues a strategy of helping people remain in the country unlawfully, it raises a serious question under federal law.
El Cajon is one of the most diverse cities in San Diego County; about 30% of our residents are Hispanic and another 30% trace their roots to the Middle East. We are a city built by immigrants, and none of what we are asking for changes that. We are asking the state to tell us, clearly, how to follow the law when the law appears to contradict itself. Our officers, city staff and residents deserve that much.
We’ve asked nicely, more than once. We’d appreciate a real answer.
