Vista council adopts immigration enforcement restrictions that detractors say create a ‘sanctuary city’

Following nearly five hours of public commentary and heated deliberation, a narrow majority of the Vista City Council approved a resolution early Wednesday placing restrictions on immigration enforcement in the city.

On a 3-2 vote, with Mayor John Franklin and Councilmember Jeff Fox in opposition, the council approved four of five items proposed by Councilmember Corinna Contreras. They directed the city to “prohibit law enforcement personnel from immigration enforcement in non-public areas of City-owned or City-controlled properties without a judicial warrant;”  prohibited Vista employees from sharing “sensitive or personal data” with such agencies unless required to do so by law; and required that similar language be written into all contracts with outside organizations going forward.

Vista will also take a more active stance in public education, posting a “know your rights” statement to its website.

A fifth suggested resolution, which would have created a plan for the city to file public records requests under the Freedom of Information Act to help the immediate family of anyone detained or deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, did not move forward.

Reaction to the actions was polarized, with supporters describing them as protecting due-process rights and detractors, who seemed to make up the majority of commenters, predicting they would only increase federal scrutiny.

The council’s action comes amid broad-based actions in cities across the United States that have resulted in the deportation of people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Increased enforcement by ICE officers, often masked, has led to incidents where some U.S. citizens and legal immigrants have been detained.

A recent opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily approved ICE stops based in part on a person’s “apparent ethnicity,” temporarily overruling a lower court’s opinion on the matter and allowing current activities to continue.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, requires a judicial warrant for government agencies to enter private dwellings or other private spaces. Municipalities are increasingly following the lead of some locations deemed sensitive, such as schools and hospitals, which quickly made it clear that they would require such warrants, and not those issued by ICE through its own administrative processes, when entering spaces not open to the general public, where the agency is free to inquire about immigration status without a warrant.

The city of Oceanside approved a similar ordinance on Sept. 18, with several other cities in the county holding a recent news conference on Sept. 13 to announce similar efforts in development in San Diego, Chula Vista and La Mesa.

San Diego County was among the first to adopt a policy that restricts the use of local resources to assist ICE agents late last year. An effort to repeal that decision led by Supervisor Jim Desmond failed in March.

El Cajon leaders have tacked in the opposite direction, voting 3-2 in February to cooperate with ICE officials to the extent permitted by state law and also seeking federal indemnification for city police officers.

Tuesday’s nearly five-hour discussion spilled into Wednesday morning, eliciting passionate discussion. Those who opposed Contreras’ proposal said it would cause the federal government to consider Vista a “sanctuary city.” Proponents insisted it is narrowly focused on requiring the federal government to follow due-process requirements when its actions stray from public venues.

Franklin recently appeared on a Fox 5/KUSI morning television program, calling the agenda item a sanctuary city policy. He did not back down from using that language after listening to hours of public comments, many of which insisted that his description is inaccurate.

“It says here on page five of six that council member Contreras wants to nail a sign to the front door of City Hall that says that federal law enforcement agents are not welcome here,” Franklin said. “Now, if that’s not a sanctuary city policy, I double dog dare you to tell me what is.”

The section he referenced does indeed call for signage to be posted at the entrances of all city-owned or controlled properties, though nails are not specified, and there is nothing that specifically says that federal agents are unwelcome. The language is a bit more bureaucratic, stating: “Non-public areas may not be accessed by federal agents, out-of-state law enforcement, or private enforcement actors unless they present a judicially issued warrant or similar court order.” It notes that city employees “have the constitutional right to decline to speak with any such individuals without legal representation.”

Contreras asked city attorney Walter Chung for his opinion on whether or not what she proposed met the legal definition of a sanctuary city. There is no formal definition of the phrase.

“The popular definitions I’ve seen are local jurisdictions using local resources or funds to protect citizen rights by limiting the interaction or cooperation with federal or with immigration officers,” Chung said. “That’s the generic definition I’ve seen, but I know of no official definition of sanctuary city.”

Contreras continued to reject that label.

“I am not un-American, I was born here, I am a patriot,” Contreras said. “I don’t believe that I need to blindly follow the government …

“It is my duty as an elected representative to ensure that the Constitution is followed.”

Speakers who supported the councilwoman’s initiative tended to follow that logic. Speaker Alondra Alvarez rejected claims that the city could not bar federal agents from its premises, citing Fourth Amendment protections but noting that a valid warrant would still grant them entry.

She, like many in the audience who shared her perspective, said that residents should be more focused on what is happening in public.

“In Vista, cars are left on the side of the road because fathers get ripped out of their trucks on their way to work,” Alvarez said. “In Vista, children are terrified to go to school out of fear that their parents will be missing when they go home.”

But many said they support ICE efforts. While some said that detentions and deportations should focus on those who have committed crimes, others advocated such actions for all with an undocumented immigration status.

Thomas Moore, a Vista resident and veteran, echoed concerns expressed by many that the actions passed early Wednesday morning will put a bull’s-eye on the city.

“This is not about due process, it’s about obstructing legitimate constitutional law enforcement,” Moore said. “Beyond the legal issues, this proposal undermines our safety.

“It would limit the city manager’s ability to assist federal law enforcement, even in cases of imminent threat.”

According to the city’s official tally, there were 58 participants opposed to the item and 62 in favor, though some from each perspective registered their support or lack of support but left before speaking.