Two hundred students from the 15 high schools in the district participated in the ceremony, held at Centro de Enseñanza Técnica y Superior (CETYS), a university.

“It really allows us to turn the narrative of the border into something positive,” said Superintendent Moisés Aguirre. “It's a place of coming together, not a place of conflict.”

Some universities have done the same in recent years, including San Diego State University and Southwestern College.

The high school district looked to those ceremonies as examples. They surveyed students and parents to see if they were interested.

For Ruth Jimenez, it was a pleasant surprise. Her son graduated from Southwest High School. Her mom can’t cross the border. In Tijuana, the three of them could celebrate together.

“It means a lot,” Jimenez said. “She’s been with us and my kids, she’s been with them since they were little. So she’s a second mom to them.”

School board member Rudy Lopez said it’s a challenge that comes up for families frequently.

“Our binational families are very cohesive units,” he said. “It’s always been something that’s part of the discussion, that sometimes there’s a parent or grandparent, sometimes a sibling that just was unable to cross the border. There’s always somebody missing out.”

Jaime Rojo Marín’s daughter crossed the border every morning to go to Chula Vista High School.

“I’m completely happy and proud of my daughter,” he said in Spanish. “She’s a very dedicated person.”

His daughter, Sade Rojo Ramirez, spoke at the ceremony.

"Class of 2026, we're here because of people who bet on us before we bet on ourselves," she told her classmates in Spanish. “Families that made the major decision to send their children, their grandchildren, their nieces and nephews, to study on the other side of the border, without certainty about the result, without guarantees of making it to the end, only with faith in a better future.”

High school wasn’t without its challenges, she said. She was learning English. She’d wake up before dawn to cross the border.

“It was a sacrifice,” she said in an interview. “It’s like two hours to cross every day.”

But, she said in her speech, there were victories, like when she understood an entire class taught in English or earned a spot on her school’s honor roll.

“The first thing I did was share it with my parents,” she said in Spanish. “In this moment, I understood that it wasn’t just me who was progressing. I was also lifting them up.”

At the end of the ceremony, the students moved the tassels on their caps from the right to the left.

District leaders hope this is the start of an annual tradition that brings students and their families together.

The 50 were among more than 80 cases scheduled that morning before Judge Catherine Halliday-Roberts.

About two dozen people made it to court and had their cases heard in the morning. Halliday-Roberts waited until the afternoon to decide the cases of those who were absent.

The deportation orders were first reported by Daylight San Diego.

The hearing was the latest in a new nationwide effort by the U.S. Department of Justice to significantly increase deportations by fast-tracking hearings, said Paulina Reyes, the San Diego director of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

"We believe ... this is the Trump administration's latest plan to move forward with mass deportations without due process," Reyes said.

Ken Nollett has been attending immigration court in San Diego for months as a volunteer observer. He said he's never seen so many people scheduled for court at once.

"In a super busy morning, one judge might have 20 cases," Nollett said. "This morning in courtroom six, it was about 90 cases."

A Justice Department official said in an emailed statement the hearings are part of an effort to reduce its backlog.

"Reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of the highest priorities for this administration," the statement said. "The Justice department is restoring integrity to our immigration system by hearing cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly, in accordance with the law."

Nollett said people are having their court dates rescheduled on short notice. It's concerning, he said, because missing court can be grounds for deportation.

"It looks like they're taking people who had hearings ... a year from now or two years from now and they've just changed the date," Nollett said.

Reyes said the same thing is happening in immigration courts across the country.

"That's what we've been hearing from our partners in other states," she said. "They're seeing that people might have been scheduled for hearings in ... late 2026, maybe in 2027, and all of a sudden received notice that they have a hearing ... within a month's notice."

The Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review said in an emailed statement that they're adjusting court schedules "to ensure cases do not languish."

"As it continues to add new immigration judges, EOIR will continue to make scheduling adjustments to ensure all cases are handled in a timely and lawful manner," the spokesperson said.

Reyes said the court is setting people up to fail.

"I think that this new policy and practice is designed to get more in absentia orders," she said. "To get more people removed without due process."

Master hearings, like the ones held Friday in San Diego, usually come early in the immigration court process.

Once an immigrant is accused by the government of being in the country illegally, they're notified and appear at a master hearing, Reyes said.

During the hearing the immigration judge will explain their rights, the nature of their alleged violation and give them the opportunity to seek an attorney.

A master calendar hearing might also be held for someone who has already been through one or more hearings. They can plead their case to the immigration judge or, like one person did in San Diego Friday, elect to self-deport.

Not everyone absent was ordered removed, according to the Daylight San Diego report. A couple were dismissed, one was transferred to another state and more than a dozen were rescheduled until next month.

The Peninsular bighorn sheep’s heavy, curved horns and front legs were trapped in the bladed, large coils.

Christina Aiello, a wildlife biologist at the Wildlands Network, found the ram last week in the Jacumba Wilderness, decomposing.

“It was pretty gruesome to see how fully wrapped up in this wire he was,” she said Tuesday.

This was the first death-by-border-wire Aiello had seen. Residents in Jacumba and Boulevard said they have also observed more wildlife wandering near their homes, some of them with lacerations, since the federal government began sealing gaps in the California-Mexico border.

Aiello said she wasn’t surprised by the ram’s death. For months, she and several other scientists and conservationists had been warning U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials about the consequences of wire fencing in natural areas.

Late last year, CBP began installing concertina wire in the Jacumba Wilderness where the animal was found. The addition of the coil fencing is part of the federal government’s larger plan to close the last remaining openings in the border wall, including in San Diego and Imperial counties, with “30-foot-high six-inch-squared diameter steel bollards” and a secondary barrier wherever possible, as well as surveillance cameras and LED lighting.

Aiello has asked CBP to remove the wire and to build animal passages on the steel U.S.-Mexico border wall that are large enough for bighorn sheep to cross. Those requests have been denied.

Conservationists have argued that without these measures in place, several species, including the endangered bighorn sheep, will be forced to travel far outside their home range in search of food and water. They said if the fencing remains in place, more protected species may die.

“If they have completed the razor wire fence, if they're doing construction on the border, you then have risks of that entanglement problem,” said Aiello. “If they leave that razor wire up, you have risks of death or interactions with construction vehicles.”

CBP declined to comment. A spokesperson deferred questions to the Joint Task Force – Southern Border, which did not respond.

In an emailed statement, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) confirmed the ram had died after getting caught in the large coils.

“CDFW has been clear with the federal government that border wall construction poses serious risks to protected wildlife, including bighorn sheep,” the statement added. “This is another tragic reminder of those concerns.”

Aiello was surprised to find the ram caught by the wire on a flat section of the Jacumba Wilderness, rather than high up in the remote area’s boulders.

“My thought here is that it actually might have just been grazing next to the fence, not even trying to jump over it,” she said. “Something as simple as just walking by with your head down and you're not paying attention, and a horn gets caught can create a very hazardous situation as the animal panics and starts to react.”

“If something so kind of mundane as walking next to the fence could lead to entrapment, I do think that the longer that fence is up, you know, the greater the risk,” Aiello added.

In Boulevard, resident Karen Parker said she has noticed more mountain lions in her community. She recently found one with noticeable lacerations on its back legs.

“Big cats have lost their habitat (since the expansion of the border wall)," she said. “(Mountain lions) have always been out here, but not like this and not this many. I put water out for them and that’s all we can do.”

On Monday, Jacumba resident Tanya Wilkins Aiau reported the death of what she believes was a wild horse that had been struck by a vehicle on Old Highway 80 near Jacumba to San Diego County Public Works officials. She said she believes the new border wall construction is pushing the horses toward busy highways.

“Because of all of the disruption, they don’t have their regular spots anymore,” she said, adding that local residents have reported two other wild horse deaths in recent months.

Aiello said she is working with state agencies and nonprofit organizations on both sides of the border to monitor wildlife movement using cameras and GPS trackers. They are also working on securing funding to install permanent water sources for animals who may lose their resources because of the border wall’s expansion.

U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested the man as he was dropping his son off at the base after a family Thanksgiving dinner. He spent the next five months at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

“He spent all of Christmas, New Year’s, Valentine’s Day detained,” Alcala said.

The man was one of five people who were detained at military bases she's represented since President Donald Trump returned to power last year. None had criminal records. They are among dozens of people arrested on bases during the second Trump administration, according to records reviewed by KPBS.

Another case that Alcala found particularly cruel involved a woman searching for a cup of coffee after dropping her kid off at elementary school. Her usual coffee shop was closed. So she looked up a random coffee shop on her phone and followed the GPS directions right into a military base.

“She was held for about a week by (Customs and Border Protection) without being given the opportunity of even a phone call,” Alcala said. “Her family didn’t know where she was. They didn’t know if she had just disappeared.”

It’s unclear exactly how many immigrants federal agents have arrested at San Diego’s six military bases. Neither the Department of Defense nor ICE have publicly shared the records.

But the increase has coincided with a May 2025 announcement by Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton that it had entered into a joint security initiative with ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The initiative’s goal was to “deter unauthorized installation access by foreign nationals and reinforce layered base defense strategies in alignment with national security objectives,” according to a press release announcing the initiative.

It was originally described as a “proof-of-concept” and has since expanded to other military facilities in San Diego.

Activists with the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative — formerly known as Habeas Dockets — found at least 44 cases of people arrested in military bases in San Diego since the start of the current Trump administration.

That number is likely an undercount because it only represents people released from the Otay Mesa Detention Center after winning habeas corpus cases in federal court, according to John Cronan, founder of the transparency initiative.

Writ of habeas corpus petitions are federal lawsuits that challenge the government’s ability to detain people indefinitely. As a legal concept, habeas corpus has been around since before the founding of the United States. The Founders included the legal protection in the U.S. Constitution in response to British troops illegally detaining colonists.

As of June 7, lawyers have filed more than 52,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal courts nationwide.

Habeas cases describe other examples of people accidentally wandering onto military bases — like a man looking for a Jersey Mike’s sandwich spot, a surfer who accidentally wandered onto Camp Pendleton, and the fiancee of an active duty service member detained at the Miramar air show.

A Camp Pendleton spokesperson deferred all questions from KPBS to ICE. A spokesperson for ICE declined to comment on individual cases, but confirmed ICE agents are helping verify identification at entry points to military bases.

Drivers are most vulnerable

Most commonly, cases involve rideshare and delivery drivers.

That’s what happened to Jose Diaz on March 31, when he was driving for Lyft. He drove onto Camp Pendleton to pick someone up — something he had done dozens of times during the Biden administration.

But this time, things were different.

Diaz said that when he arrived at the Camp Pendleton entrance, he showed guards his driver’s license, valid work permit and the Lyft app confirming the pickup location.

A guard called ICE agents and told Diaz to wait. At first, he said, he wasn’t nervous. Diaz has been in the country four years, works, files taxes and doesn’t have a criminal record.

The federal agents detained him anyway. They cuffed his wrists, ankles and waist before loading him into a transport van. Joining him in the van were two DoorDash drivers who’d also been arrested that day.

“They treat you like a criminal,” Diaz said in Spanish.

He spent six weeks in the Otay Mesa Detention Center. The privately run immigrant jail charges federal taxpayers roughly $200 a day to keep someone in custody, according to a budget overview from the Department of Homeland Security. 

Diaz said he mostly passed the time watching television and talking to other rideshare drivers. Some days he was so bored, time seemed to slow down to a crawl, he said. He’d stare at a clock, wait a while, look back and see that only one or two minutes had passed.

Even though immigration detention is technically civic detention, Diaz said he felt like a prisoner. His movements were restricted and he could only eat at certain times.

The food was mostly bland, but not horrible, he said. Except one time when he said he found a worm in his salad.

Diaz supports deporting immigrants who break the law, or even those who accept government welfare without working for it. But he said it is deeply unfair to use criminal immigrants as a justification to detain people who follow the rules.

“They are persecuting us because of those other people,” he said. “And we’re the ones who just want to work here.”

Arrests at military facilities have become so common among San Diego rideshare and delivery drivers that they are now starting to warn each other through WhatsApp and Facebook groups or word-of-mouth — like when they are all waiting for pickups at the airport.

The risk has become an open secret, said Valentin, a driver and organizer who asked KPBS not to share his full name because of his lack of legal status. “We have to take precautions because we’re always at risk,” he said.

Valentin encourages all immigrant drivers to cancel trips to military bases or ask if they can be dropped off outside the base. He said service members are usually sympathetic to his plight.

“Some of them understand, they are supportive,” he said.

But the lost income is significant. By not accepting rides or deliveries to military bases, drivers like Valentin lose between 10% and 15% of their weekend earnings. That’s because driving sailors and Marines back to their barracks after a night out can be lucrative, he said.

'Because they could'

Diaz’s lawyer, Alcala, still remembers hearing the anguish in Diaz’s voice when he’d ask her why he was being detained.

She didn’t have an answer for him. People with pending immigration cases, a documented work history and no criminal record are not supposed to be detained, she said.

“It’s frustrating because there’s nothing I can do about it,” she said. “I’m supposed to be the person who is supposed to be able to fix it and I can’t fix it.”

Eventually, Alcala was able to secure Diaz’s release by filing a habeas petition.

She said she does not believe arresting working immigrants with legal status in military bases improves national security. She said it is part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to put as many people as possible in detention and try to pressure them into self-deportation.

“The detention was primarily because they could,” Alcala said.

She now tells all of her clients to avoid military bases unless they are permanent residents or U.S. citizens.

Jose Diaz no longer drives for Lyft or Uber. He only works his construction job for a roofing company and chef job at a Mexican restaurant. Before the arrest, he was thinking of saving up for a house. But he no longer sees the U.S. as a safe long-term option.

“Is it worth it to work so hard and follow the rules in this country if they’re just going to treat me like a criminal anyway?” he said.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Otay Mesa Detention Center to allow San Diego County health inspectors access to the 1,400-bed facility, siding with local officials over the federal government in an ongoing legal feud.

The ruling could affect how local officials across the state implement a new California law aimed at providing an additional layer of oversight for privately-run immigration detention facilities.

San Diego County sued the Department of Homeland Security in March after two county supervisors and the health inspector were not given full access to the CoreCivic-run facility. The Southern California county is the first in the state to try to exercise the inspection authority, granted by state law in 2024.

Judge James Simmons Jr. of the Southern District of California said last month that the county was likely to succeed in its lawsuit over whether it has the authority to conduct public health inspections under the state law.

In his order issued Wednesday, Simmons Jr. wrote the inspection “shall be completed as soon as practicable and no later than June 17, 2026.” He also ordered CoreCivic to produce a list of policies and procedures requested by the county.

“The county is responsible for the safety and the health of anyone who is within this jurisdiction, which includes those detained in the facility,” County Counsel Damon Brown said at a press conference after the hearing in May.

Otay Mesa is one of eight privately run detention centers in California. They are collectively holding about 5,300 people, up from about 3,100 just after President Trump took office in April 2025 and commenced a nationwide immigration crackdown.

Simmons ordered county officials to try to reach an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and CoreCivic on who exactly can participate in the inspection, which areas they can inspect, and how to obtain consent from detainees to be interviewed and to have their medical records reviewed.

At the court hearing, CoreCivic attorney Anne Orcutt said the Tennessee-based private prison company, which owns and operates Otay Mesa, has filed a California Public Records Act request with the County of San Diego to find out if supervisors typically attend public health inspections with the county officials.

Appearing by Zoom, Orcutt described the county’s request to inspect the facility as unprecedented and discriminatory against the federal government.

San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, who was denied access to the inspection in February, said the argument was a distraction from the issue.

“That is the epitome of a red herring,” she said. “The first people who arrived were a public health officer and a nurse. They were not allowed access to any of the relevant documents and were kicked out of the facility. The public health inspection was denied with or without our presence.”

At a news conference in March announcing the lawsuit, county supervisors credited CalMatters reporting with why they wanted to inspect the facility in the first place. County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre specifically mentioned a situation where a deaf Mongolian man spent more than four months detained without access to a Mongolian Sign Language interpreter, which his attorney described as being like solitary confinement.

CoreCivic spokesman Ryan Gustin said the company’s top priority is “the safety, health and well-being of the individuals entrusted to our care.”

“We fully respect the judicial process and remain committed to working with both ICE and San Diego County to find a mutually agreed-upon resolution to this matter,” he said.

It was a win for the man’s Pasadena-based immigration lawyer Stacy Tolchin. The judge’s order came after Tolchin filed a habeas corpus petition to free her client. These petitions, which previously were a rarity in immigration courts, have now become a common response by lawyers to the Trump administration’s efforts to keep people detained indefinitely.

The next step for Tolchin was to go back to immigration court for the bond hearing. But that’s when her victory turned sour. The immigration judge issued a $50,000 bond for a man with no criminal record.

Tolchin has practiced immigration law since 2001. She’s seen high bonds before, but only in rare circumstances. And never for someone like her client — a man who has been in the country for 25 years, has a family, a job and no criminal record.

“I had a $50,000 bond when there was an Interpol red warrant for a foreign arrest for murder,” she said. “That was a $50,000 bond case. So that tells you where we are now.”

Plus, in immigration court, people have to pay the full bond, not 10% like in criminal court, she said.

Tolchin’s case is part of a broader pattern that’s emerged in recent months. Immigration judges are ordering much higher bond amounts, or denying them altogether.

Immigration lawyers say it is the latest maneuver by the Trump administration to meet its deportation quotas. It started in 2025, when ICE made it much more difficult for detainees to be released under bond or humanitarian programs within the immigration court system.

That’s when lawyers turned to federal courts and began filing habeas corpus petitions — a centuries-old legal remedy meant to protect people from being unlawfully imprisoned by the federal government.

Habeas petitions have become so common that federal courts in San Diego and Los Angeles have implemented new protocols to streamline the process — like requiring the government to respond within seven days or assigning cases to magistrate judges to increase the number of cases they hear, Tolchin said.

Lawyers have filed more than 50,000 habeas petitions in federal courts across the country, according to data from Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative, formerly known as Habeas Dockets.

And they seemed to be working — at first.

“The vast majority of our habeas petitions have been successful,” said Megan Day, an attorney at the Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center. “I think in our office we’ve had above a 90 percent success rate.”

Each case felt like validation — federal judges agreeing that their clients should not have been indefinitely held in immigration detention.

But even before this latest issue, those wins felt bittersweet, Day said.

The damage had already been done. Some clients had already been detained for months, separated from their families and unable to work.

The petitions take hours to put together. Which means immigration lawyers — who are already in extremely high demand — are unable to take on more cases.

“It just takes a lot of time, effort and resources,” she said. “We could take on more bond cases or work on people’s immigration relief applications.”

Day and other immigration lawyers told KPBS their clients have lost apartments and jobs while detained. And even after they’re released, some show signs of PTSD from their time in detention.

“It’s frustrating to have to go to one part of the government to tell another government agency what they should be doing,” she said.

In a statement, the Executive Office for Immigration Review — a subagency within the U.S. Department of Justice that oversees immigration courts — said the Trump administration is complying with court orders and fully enforcing immigration law. They called the allegations from immigration lawyers “baseless” attacks.

The 8-minute hearing

Cassandra Lopez is a lawyer with Al Otro Lado, a San Diego immigrant rights organization. She says one of her bond hearings was decided in less than 10 minutes.

It came down to whether her client was a flight risk. Lopez says in immigration courts, the judges normally put the burden of proof on the lawyers representing ICE. But that’s not what happened in this case.

The immigration judge didn’t ask ICE lawyers any questions. Instead, they put the burden on her client.

“The hearing lasted eight or nine minutes,” Lopez said.

She described this as an example of shifting culture within the immigration court system.

“We’ve seen the Trump administration fire immigration judges and hire deportation judges,” Lopez said. “We’re hiring judges that are just going to rubber-stamp our deportation apparatus.”

Lopez and other immigration lawyers have had clients lose hope, abandon their case and self-deport instead of staying in detention indefinitely. Sometimes, it feels like the goal, she said.

“That’s why the government is using immigration detention,” she said. “It’s not because these people are a danger or a flight risk.”

Tolchin says this is another example of how the immigration court system’s legitimacy is disappearing.

“We’re just really concerned that this really is a sham court at this point and it’s become an agent of the Trump administration,” she said.

The U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission, or IBWC, said that’s because a 10-mile pipeline in Tijuana, dubbed the Parallel Gravity Line, collapsed Friday night.

The line is supposed to transport wastewater to the San Antonio de los Buenos plant in Baja California, which is designed to divert flows from the Tijuana River by treating 18 million gallons per day before releasing them into the Pacific Ocean.

Instead, the raw flows have been entering the river. According to IBWC data, flows in the river spiked from 10 million gallons on Friday to 34 million gallons on Sunday.

It’s likely the jump in water pollution also pushed hydrogen sulfide levels above state and federal thresholds over the weekend, triggering air quality alerts from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The alerts warn the public to limit their time outdoors and to seek medical care if symptoms such as asthma or other breathing issues worsen.

On Monday, the IBWC did not respond to an interview request. The agency acknowledged in a news release Sunday that residents near the river “may notice increased wastewater flows in the Tijuana River Channel along with stronger odors.”

The IBWC also said that the Parallel Gravity Line has ruptured twice over the past two weeks. That’s been frustrating for residents and environmental advocates pushing for solutions. Among them is Patrick McDonough, senior attorney for San Diego Coastkeeper.

“Unfortunately, we routinely receive email updates about ruptures or damage to infrastructure in the Tijuana wastewater system that leads to these high flows or spill events that then impacts the water in the estuary,” he said.

Repeated infrastructure failures are, in part, what has prompted Coastkeeper to file a complaint in January against Mexico with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an organization established by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. that works to protect the North American environment.

McDonough said the organization has accepted its petition and is now seeking a response from Mexico by the end of July. He hopes that Mexico will release an analysis of the status of Tijuana’s wastewater system that it has already conducted.

“We just want the full, complete picture of what the status of the problem is, and also then how the Mexican federal government and its respective agencies could solve these issues,” he said.

Mexican officials said they expect emergency repairs to take several days.

The team will still play its group stage matches in the U.S. but its base has been moved to Tijuana, Mexico, just south of San Diego, California, a move that Iran's soccer federation announced recently and that was formally confirmed by FIFA, the sport's governing body, on Monday.

Moving the training base comes against the backdrop of the war in Iran, which the U.S. and Israel launched on Feb. 28.

Sheinbaum said at a news conference Monday that she was told by a FIFA representative the U.S. was reluctant to have the Iranian soccer team spend time outside the games on U.S. territory.

"The United States doesn't want the Iranian national team to stay overnight in the United States," Sheinbaum told reporters. She said a FIFA representative had then asked, "Can they stay overnight in Mexico?"

"And we said, 'Yes, no problem. We have no issue with that'," she said.

Iran's soccer team is slated to play matches in Inglewood, California, against New Zealand on June 15 and against Belgium six days later, before facing Egypt on June 26 in Seattle.

Before the war broke out, the team was originally planned to set up its base in Tucson, Arizona. But with tensions simmering, Iran's team moved its base to Tijuana in Mexico, Sheinbaum said, confirming an announcement by the Iranian federation over the weekend. The federation said the Iranians had received approval from FIFA, which made the move official on Monday when it released the lists of all 48 base camp sites.

Teams use base camps to train before and after matches. This year's World Cup runs from June 11 to July 19 and will be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

The possibility of a move had simmered for months in the uncertainty surrounding the war in the Middle East and security concerns. U.S. sanctions on Iran were likely to only make the team's stay in the U.S. more complex.

The U.S. State Department said in a statement on Monday that President Donald Trump had made it clear the Iranian team was welcome to participate in the tournament.

The department's statement did not address where the team might stay, or Sheinbaum's comments.

Sheinbaum said that her government was working with FIFA to hash out all the details before the competition.

Medi-Cal is the name of California’s state and federally funded health insurance program for low-income individuals.

The proposal would shift some refugees, asylum-seekers and survivors of violence or trafficking from comprehensive Medi-Cal coverage to restricted coverage that primarily includes emergency and pregnancy-related services.

State budget analysts report Medi-Cal costs are rising and federal policy changes under last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act are expected to increase fiscal pressure on California’s Medicaid program.

Advocates argue the changes could disproportionately impact people recovering from trauma, violence and persecution.

“People who are refugees, people who are seeking asylum, people who are survivors of various different kinds of violence and trafficking,” said Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network. “They would lose their Medi-Cal, and future individuals who fall into those categories would be ineligible to enroll.”

Savage-Sangwan said she is worried about the disruption of care.

“They would be ripped away from their doctors, from their therapists, from their medication, and in many cases, they would have nowhere to turn for access to healthcare, behavioral healthcare,” Savage-Sangwan, said. “We're talking about people who potentially are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, who may have experienced malnutrition, who may have other untreated injuries, chronic conditions.

Abuse and trauma survivors often rely on ongoing medical and mental health support while recovering, said Siboney Montoya, who runs the domestic violence program at the Community Resource Center in Encinitas.

“When health care becomes more difficult to access, survivors will then postpone treatment, which then loses that continuity with any trusted provider,” Montoya said. “So that’s an additional challenge during a time when someone is already trying to figure out their safety, housing, food, and just their overall well-being.”

State lawmakers are expected to continue negotiating the budget in the coming weeks.

Sitting in a park in the Mexican border city of Tecate, Norma Meza Calles can hear the sound of border wall construction crews pulverizing boulders on Tecate Peak, about a half mile away.

To Meza, each pebble that crews chip away from those boulders is an insult to her and the rest of the Kumeyaay people. That's because the peak, which is also known as Kuchamaa Mountain, is a sacred place.

“They’re destroying it,” Meza said in Spanish.

Meza said the mountain is like a therapist for the Kumeyaay. Generations of Kumeyaay on both sides of the border have hiked up the mountain to meditate while sitting on the smooth white boulders that have been there for more than 100 million years.

As a little girl, Meza remembers seeing adults — grieving the loss of a loved one or coping with divorce — spend days in silent contemplation on some of the very same boulders that are now being ripped apart so President Donald Trump’s border wall can be extended.

“That’s where you go for a cleanse,” she said. “Because you have to release all of that sadness from your mind.”

Kuchamaa Mountain, which sits on both sides of the border, is protected in the National Register of Historic Places. Yet, this construction project was approved without the formal review typically required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

But, in the name of national security, the Trump administration has waived those reviews for multiple projects along the border.

“The Department of Homeland Security has been able to secure successfully through legal means waivers on some of these border projects, and Congress authorized multi-year funding for the border fences, which has allowed some of these projects to be fast-tracked,” said Richard Kiy, president of the Institute of the Americas.

The administration waived a similar review process for another construction project near Big Bend National Park in Texas. The project faced multiple protests this year.

Kiy worked on cross-border affairs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration. He said the stones on Kuchamaa Mountain might have been saved had there been a review.

“That would have allowed more for public consultation,” he said. “That would’ve allowed for considerations related to the cultural significance of Mount Kuchamaa, it would’ve taken into account some of the environmental impacts including wildlife corridors.”

That said, every project has some environmental impact, and it is not accurate to believe a review would have mitigated all those impacts, Kiy added.

Nonetheless, Kiy said an extensive environmental review could’ve incentivized the federal government to come up with new building methods. For example, the Indian government has experimented with a laser fence along its border with Pakistan.

“In the 21st century, I think there are ways to explore technology solutions so that we can have a secure border but at the same time address some of the biodiversity concerns and cultural heritage concerns that exist in a place like the Tecate border,” Kiy said.

As someone who worked on border projects for the EPA, Kiy understands why the administration waived these requirements. The process can take years and derail projects. For example, he said, it took the EPA 10 years to complete its review of the CBX airport border crossing in Otay Mesa.

While there has been no environmental review on the U.S. side, several Mexico-based organizations have conducted their own.

The Rancho La Puerta Foundation, an organization that helped establish a conservation easement for Kuchamaa Mountain on the Mexican side of the border, coordinated an independent review, said Demien Vega, an institutional development coordinator with the foundation.

The 280-page study identifies several species of plants and animals that will likely be impacted by the new wall. For example, mountain lions cross from the Mexican side to the U.S. side to access their main source of water. The report also flags the risk of mudslides in Buena Vista, one of Tecate’s oldest neighborhoods, which sits at the foot of the mountain right along the border wall.

“Everything will wash down with a Super El Niño here in Tecate and this neighborhood can suffer the consequences,” Vega said.

Part of what makes the current reality so heartbreaking for the people of Tecate is they thought they’d done enough over the years to protect the mountain.

In the early 2000s, Kumeyaay representatives and Mexican conservationists worked with their U.S. counterparts to expand the environmental protections north of the border.

“Through an MOU with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forestry service, we convinced them to protect the land and we all agreed – both nations,” Vega said. “So all of the mountain is protected in terms of nature and biodiversity.”

In Mexico, the controversy surrounding the project has reached the highest levels of government.

Last month, Baja California’s Secretary of Culture formally asked the U.S. to stop detonating explosives on the mountain. When asked about it by local reporters, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her office is aware of the situation.

Back in Tecate, Meza doesn’t expect construction to stop.

She respects U.S. sovereignty and its right to defend its border. She said that section of the border can be dangerous because of drug smuggling. But she knows the border could be secured – perhaps with cameras or motion sensors — without destroying a heritage.

She views this as one more indignity in a history full of them.

“We’ve always been stepped on and discriminated against,” she said. “And we’ve resisted. The mountain will resist too.”

A California state senator said Monday he plans to introduce legislation to prevent private corporations involved in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign from seeking certain tax breaks.

State Sen. Steve Padilla’s announcement came after a KPBS investigation last week found the owner of an ICE detention center in Imperial County, a local nonprofit called the Brawley Community Foundation, has avoided paying millions in property taxes through a state credit for charities called the Welfare Exemption.

In a statement to KPBS Monday, Padilla called the tax breaks “a breathtaking example of governmental abuse of the tax code.”

“Private detention centers engaged in mass deportation raking in millions in profit from the pain and suffering of families is not charity,” said the Democratic senator, whose district includes Imperial County. “Nothing about this is charitable, and Imperial County residents shouldn’t be forced to subsidize it.”

Padilla said his legislation would be aimed at ensuring that “no other corporation engaged in mass deportation can use the tax code to fleece Californians.”

The lawmaker’s announcement comes as the two agencies that signed off on the tax breaks, the state Board of Equalization and the Imperial County Assessor’s Office, face growing pressure to revisit those decisions — some of which took place more than a decade ago.

Last week, Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee Chair Jerry McNerney told KPBS his committee was reviewing whether the detention center’s owner should be receiving those tax breaks.

McNerney, a Democrat from Stockton, said the assessor’s office appeared to have “misapplied state law” in signing off on the exemption.

“A privately run ICE detention center is not a charity,” the senator said in a statement. “It should not be receiving tax breaks afforded to legitimate California charities.”

McNerney also urged the Board of Equalization to review the foundation’s application. The board oversees the state’s property taxes and has joint authority over the Welfare Exemption.

In a statement to KPBS, Imperial County Assistant Assessor Jack Dunnam defended the office’s decision-making process. He said they had sought guidance from the board and had taken steps to review the foundation’s claims every year.

But Dunnam said they were going to take a closer look at the foundation’s application.

“The Imperial County Assessor has requested a meeting with our County Counsel to discuss this issue, and we are preparing a request for a legal review of the IVGC property and their welfare exemption application,” Dunnam wrote.

John Taylor, a spokesperson for the Board of Equalization, said the agency conducts thorough reviews of every application. But he said county assessors have the final say over whether to issue the tax breaks.

“The authority to grant or deny a property tax exemption rests with the County Assessor on an annual basis,” Taylor told KPBS over email.

In recent months, California legislators have proposed a number of crackdowns on federal detention centers — including by imposing new taxes on ICE’s for-profit contractors — in response to the Trump administration’s deadly mass deportation campaign.

Padilla is the author of one of those bills, SB 941, which would ban private detention centers from marking up the cost of basic products they sell to detainees like soap, baking soda and canned food.

None of Imperial County’s five supervisors responded to emails requesting comment on McNerney's remarks last week.

But a current candidate for supervisor told KPBS the lawmaker’s comments highlighted “a deeply concerning disconnect” between state law and local enforcement.

“Senator McNerney’s assessment that the Assessor’s Office may have misapplied the law is a serious charge,” wrote Enrique Alvarado, an investigator with the Imperial County Public Defender’s office. “I will advocate for a complete forensic audit of all such exemptions to ensure as in this case that our tax code supports charities, not private contractors.”

Alvarado, a registered Republican, is currently running against Democratic incumbent Supervisor Jesus Eduardo Escobar to represent the southeastern reaches of the county.

Alvarado previously told KPBS he would also support directing county health officials to conduct regular, unannounced inspections of the detention center.

It’s a massive event that celebrates cycling as a sustainable alternative to car culture. On Thursday, dozens of participating organizations will host over 100 designated “pit stops” from Oceanside to Tijuana.

But one bike co-op, City Heights-based Biked del Pueblo, is sitting this one out.

“We’re boycotting Bike Anywhere Day because we feel that it is unfair and wrong the SANDAG is selling data to the federal government,” said Bikes del Pueblo volunteer Cynthia Tecson, referencing SANDAG’s controversial contract granting U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations access to the ARJIS criminal database.

KPBS reported last year that the contract gives federal immigration agencies access to data collected from every law enforcement agency in San Diego County, which is a potential violation of California’s immigrant sanctuary laws.

The database contains names, addresses, phone numbers, criminal records and vehicle information of people who interact with local police officers or sheriff’s deputies. ARJIS also includes several applications that law enforcement officers use to track down suspects.

While agencies like CBP and HSI are explicitly told not to use ARJIS data to enforce federal immigration law, SANDAG does not have any independent oversight authority to audit their searches in order to ensure compliance.

In January, several members of SANDAG’s board of directors questioned these contracts.

They pointed to the Trump administration’s heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics, and alluded to federal court findings accusing CBP of violating people’s constitutional rights while conducting roving patrols.

San Diego City Councilmember Vivian Moreno (who serves on the SANDAG board) said she wanted to terminate future contracts.

“I’ve seen enough from our federal agencies to know that I do not want to participate in what ICE is doing,” she said during the January meeting.

Bikes del Pueblo’s boycott is the first time a community-based organization has launched a protest against SANDAG over the contract.

“We appreciate SANDAG’s advocacy on bicycle infrastructure, but we need them to stop selling data to the feds,” Tecson said.

On Monday, Bikes del Pueblo partnered with the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition to start an online petition asking SANDAG to stop granting CBP and HSI access to ARJIS. As of Tuesday morning, they had collected 860 signatures.

SANDAG did not respond to questions about the boycott.

This isn’t the first time Bikes del Pueblo has protested the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts. Volunteers have organized community patrols where they ride bikes around the neighborhood looking for enforcement operations, said volunteer Elliot Varon.

“City Heights is a largely black and brown neighborhood that has been targeted by ICE,” Varon said. “So there have been a lot of ICE patrols going on.”

As part of their boycott Thursday, the organization will host an unofficial pit stop. Their goal is to help spread awareness about SANDAG’s contract with CBP within San Diego’s cycling community.

“Our call to action is for community members to contact their SANDAG representatives to urge them to vote against renewing the CBP contract in June,” said Kareston Markely, another volunteer.

Some county leaders are listening. County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre has been an outspoken critic of SANDAG’s contract.

“The fact that this group has decided to take a stand, I think takes a lot of courage,” said Aguirre, who is the county’s representative on the SANDAG board. “But I think it sends an important message to those who may not think that this is important.”

Aguirre said she’s sensitive to the fear of federal immigration agencies in vulnerable communities.

“I think that fear is real and I empathize and feel that fear every day in the work that I do and the stories I hear from my constituents,” she said. “That’s why I’ve been very vocal in my opposition.”

Aguirre has already asked SANDAG to kill the contracts, noting that fees collected from CBP and HSI account for less than 0.001 percent of the transportation agency’s budget.

A California Senate committee is reviewing whether an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Imperial County should be receiving special property tax breaks meant for charities.

The lawmakers’ inquiry came after a KPBS investigation last week found the Imperial Regional Detention Facility’s owner, a local nonprofit called the Brawley Community Foundation, has avoided paying millions in property taxes through a state credit called the Welfare Exemption.

In a statement to KPBS, Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee Chair Jerry McNerney said the Imperial County Assessor’s office appeared to have “misapplied state law” in signing off on the exemption.

“A privately run ICE detention center is not a charity,” wrote McNerney, a Democratic Senator from Stockton. “It should not be receiving tax breaks afforded to legitimate California charities.”

McNerney said his committee was examining the arrangement. He also urged the California Board of Equalization to review the foundation’s application. The board oversees the state’s property taxes and has joint authority over the Welfare Exemption.

In a statement to KPBS, Imperial County Assistant Assessor Jack Dunnam defended the office’s decision-making process. He said they had sought guidance from the board and had taken steps to review the foundation’s claims every year.

But Dunnam said they were going to take a closer look at the foundation’s application.

“The Imperial County Assessor has requested a meeting with our County Counsel to discuss this issue, and we are preparing a request for a legal review of the IVGC property and their welfare exemption application,” Dunnam wrote.

John Taylor, a spokesperson for the Board of Equalization, said the agency conducts thorough reviews of every application. But he said county assessors have the final say over whether to issue the tax breaks.

“The authority to grant or deny a property tax exemption rests with the County Assessor on an annual basis,” Taylor told KPBS over email.

The lawmaker’s inquiry comes as more California legislators have proposed cracking down on federal detention centers — including by imposing new taxes on ICE’s for-profit contractors — in response to the Trump administration’s deadly mass deportation campaign.

None of Imperial County’s five supervisors responded to emails requesting comment on McNerney's remarks.

But a current candidate for supervisor told KPBS the lawmaker’s comments highlighted “a deeply concerning disconnect” between state law and local enforcement.

“Sen. McNerney’s assessment that the Assessor’s Office may have misapplied the law is a serious charge,” wrote Enrique Alvarado, an investigator with the Imperial County Public Defender’s office. “I will advocate for a complete forensic audit of all such exemptions to ensure, as in this case, that our tax code supports charities, not private contractors.”

Alvarado, a registered Republican, is currently running against Democratic incumbent Supervisor Jesus Eduardo Escobar to represent the southeastern reaches of the county.

Alvarado previously told KPBS he would also support directing county health officials to conduct regular, unannounced inspections of the detention center.

A report released Friday on conditions at immigration detention facilities across the state — including the Otay Mesa Detention Center — found that overcrowding is a major issue at the San Diego County facility caused by a marked increase of arrivals within the past year.

The findings are contained in the California Department of Justice's report on Otay Mesa and six other California immigration detention facilities, all of which displayed "serious concerns about these facilities' ability to safely detain a growing detainee population and underscore the need for greater accountability and oversight," according to a statement from the California Attorney General's Office.

Six detainees died in ICE custody between September 2025 and March 2026 — the highest number since the California Department of Justice started conducting reviews in 2017, the 175-page "Immigration Detention in California" report found.

In a statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta took aim at the current administration's focus on deportations as a catalyst for increasingly poor conditions within the state's immigration detention facilities.

"The Trump Administration's mass deportation campaign has led to a shocking increase in detainee populations — and facilities have been alarmingly unprepared to meet this new demand," Bonta said. "During their inspections, my team found evidence of inadequate medical care and heard countless reports of disturbing, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions and a lack of basic necessities. This is cruel, inhumane and unacceptable — and it is past time for the Trump Administration to do something about it."

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report.

A spokesperson for the ACLU of Southern California said the civil rights organization was reviewing the report.

Regarding the Otay Mesa Detention Center, the DOJ's report said the facility experienced "surges in population" that have impacted intake process time, cleanliness of the housing units and the availability of numerous other resources.

During the DOJ's two day tour of the facility last fall, Otay Mesa's population was around 21% greater than it was during the DOJ's prior visit in 2023.

The DOJ said detainees reported a lack of available beds and toilets for the entire facility population, along with inadequate portions of food and water. Detainees "stated that their housing units often had 20-30 people over capacity," the report says.

While the facility has improved its health care staffing levels since the DOJ's 2023 site visits, the report said there were delays in medical care access and recordkeeping issues impacting continuity of care.

The report also said Otay Mesa was the only California facility that had a policy to strip search detainees after each non-legal contact visit.

"Detainees reported that this practice has an overwhelming negative impact on the mental health and dignity of detainees," the report said.

The report comes shortly after efforts were made by county officials to inspect the facility after they said detainees reported freezing temperatures, untreated medical conditions and food unfit for human consumption. San Diego County later sued the federal government and private prison company CoreCivic after county supervisors were blocked from entering the premises and a San Diego federal judge has indicated that he will grant the county's request.

Business signs in both English and Arabic line the street. Conversations in Arabic, Dari and other languages and dialects drift in and out of shops and restaurants. Women wearing colorful scarves push their strollers.

And at the heart of the city in a small park, uncles and grandfathers puff their cigarettes, sip their coffee and sit together on park benches, huddling over games of backgammon.

These glimpses of downtown El Cajon offer a snapshot of the diverse refugee and immigrant communities that have come to the city. While El Cajon is a Republican stronghold, it has for decades also been a haven for Middle Eastern and North African refugees and immigrants — from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan, among others.

The first to arrive in El Cajon in significant numbers in the 1970s and '80s were Chaldeans, Christians mainly from Iraq. They were followed by the Kurdish, Syrians, Afghans and others in the 1980s and '90s. But it wasn’t until the turn of the current century that this growing refugee and immigrant community was able to build lasting support networks.

“When I came, there were zero services to meet the needs of refugee and immigrant communities, especially when it comes to issues of domestic violence,” said Dilkhwaz Ahmed, CEO of License to Freedom, in an interview with KPBS. “I just realized something got to be done for my community. We need to create a space for them.”

Ahmed founded License to Freedom in 2002. In the decades since, the organization’s services have expanded to include language and business classes, housing navigation, therapy sessions and more.

Now, more than a year since President Donald Trump began his second term, the services are needed more than ever.

Among Trump’s first actions upon taking office was to enact a refugee ban. This suspended decisions on applications for refugee status and paused resettlement agency support. Then, at the beginning of the current fiscal year, Trump set a historically low refugee admissions cap. The 125,000 cap in 2025 dropped to 7,500 this year.

“We see a lot of people seeking services. They want to be free to talk to somebody without being punished, or challenged or being threatened of deportation,” Ahmed said. “And we are creating that space for them.”

The growth of El Cajon’s refugee population

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service earliest refugee report available online reported in 1997, 69,276 refugees arrived in the U.S. Around 2,600 of those refugees came from Iraq. The U.S. Census estimates El Cajon’s foreign-born population prior to the year 2000 was 9,782.

Ahmed attributes the growth of El Cajon’s refugee and immigrant population to the roots established by the first Chaldeans who came to El Cajon.

“They brought the most beautiful thing: culture,” Ahmed said. “The city was missing that (a) long time ago. I think they brought the spices, the flavor that would make El Cajon something different.”

Dr. Noori Barka came to El Cajon in 1998 and later founded the Chaldean Community Council. He said it took awhile for Chaldeans to feel accepted.

“When more people start coming here from (the) Middle East, mainly Chaldean, we were new to the environment,” Barka said. “And people, they see us, we are different and we speak different language.”

The impact of the Iraq War, which lasted from 2003 until 2011, on the Chaldean community — both in El Cajon and nationwide — can’t be overstated.

From 2007 to 2008, Iraqi refugee admissions nationwide increased over eight-fold, and by 2013, Iraqis accounted for nearly 28% of new arrivals to the U.S.

The influx of new arrivals led to inevitable cultural clashes. Barka remembers when he was planning the first Chaldean community festival in 2010. He put two ads in the penny saver — one in Arabic, the other in English. The ad in Arabic set off alarms.

“After a few days, I received the call from the Chamber of Commerce, and they are telling me … people are receiving it at home, and they are not happy,” Barka said. “That was unacceptable at that time for the community to accept even the language.”

However, he said with more time and opportunities for people to meet at events and collaborate on community boards, El Cajon’s perception of the Chaldean community changed. Plus, along with the growth of the population, came more Chaldean businesses and churches throughout the city.

“We made (a) significant change in the life of El Cajon,” Barka said. ”You see, all this shopping, all these businesses, all these supermarkets, all these restaurants are flourishing.”

Tom Wong, a UC San Diego political science professor and founding director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center, said the establishment of these businesses was part of a social network that laid the groundwork for future waves of immigration.

“The role that social networks play is incredibly important. From the '70s, '80s, '90s onward, when we think about Iraqis in places like El Cajon, there's an initial sort of settlement of groups of people who then bring family members, and others,” Wong said. “The initial settlement builds upon itself … which then creates larger and larger communities.”

Geography matters 

The Iraq War is just one of many conflicts that have roiled the Middle East over the past 50 years. And with each war comes a new group of refugees looking for some semblance of home.

Homayoun Siddiq is a sociologist and translator for Afghan people in San Diego. He said the connections among the immigrant and refugee groups in El Cajon mirror the connections back in the Middle East.

“We are close geographically,” Homayoun said. “We are close by value. We are close by traditions… When I meet a Chaldean or an Arab from El Cajon, we shake hands twice. First we say, ‘Hi, how are you?’ And then he says, ‘Hi, I'm Chaldean. I'm from Iran…’ So, we shake hands again because it's to show how close we are. It's like seeing an old friend you haven't seen for a long time.”

The San Diego County reported that 9,617 refugees came to the county between fiscal years 2020-2023, which made it one of the top refugee resettlement sites in the state. Most refugees during that time came from Afghanistan, Haiti, Syria and Iraq.

But even though the U.S. is a better option than their home countries, the realities of living here are often jarring for refugees.

Faridullah Ibrahimkhil works at Arman Market and Restaurant on West Main Street. He was a journalist in Afghanistan in 2021 when the U.S. withdrew the remainder of its combat troops after 20 years of war. His life there became increasingly perilous as the Taliban retook control of the country.

“The Taliban did not accept journalism work because (the) Taliban said journalism and media is anti-Taliban,” Ibrahimkhil said. “Life in Afghanistan for journalist is (a) very hard life. Every one week, every month some journalist (is) arrested by (the) Taliban. We decide we want to leave Afghanistan to another country.”

After years of working through the asylum system, Ibrahimkhil and his family were reunited in 2025. But they didn’t experience the welcome they had expected.

“He said at first they were hearing lots of great things about America but now they're more scared of if ICE is gonna come and deport them,” Ibrahimkhil said through a translator. “They just want their basic human rights.”

Feeling like home 

License to Freedom’s walls are painted vivid colors: tangerine, lime green, lavender and pomegranate. At their therapy offices, one room is called the kitchen, another the living room.

This is by design, said Qamar Almwali, one of the organization’s marriage and family therapists.

“I actually painted some of the rooms here to make it as colorful, as homey and cozy as possible,” Almwali said. “We work with a lot of families and kids … a lot of people whose homes maybe represent some of what it looks like here. So that's what we are trying to do is replicate the feeling of just being at home and feeling comfortable.”

Their central offices, a block from Main Street, are a hub that plugs folks into support, from therapy to housing navigation to business classes to English as second language (ESL) classes.

In addition to individual and family therapy, License to Freedom also runs several support groups for men, women and children.

On Monday mornings, a small group of around 10 women meet with case manager Nahid Siddiq and therapist Dr. Niyati Kadakia to talk about raising their children and adjusting to life in the U.S. Siddiq came as a refugee with her family in 1989.

“We just tell them to be hopeful and be strong,” Nahid said. “I think the strength we have (is) because we went through so much back home. “

Kadakia leads therapeutic art practices to help them navigate their feelings and discuss their difficult experiences.

“They carry a lot of trauma (and) fear,” Ahmed explained. “They survive war, torture, being disconnected with the family members, they lost family members. So, when they come to this country, they need mental health services.”

Kadakia approaches it with an understanding of their cultural and religious values.

There’s an emphasis on supporting these women because the women before them did not have the same resources. That intentionality comes directly from the experiences Ahmed, the founder, had as a new refugee.

“I just realized something got to be done for my community,” Ahmed said.

One Monday morning in April, Kadakia led the women through a practice where they were encouraged to connect to their younger selves. She also had them write love letters to themselves.

“We always tell them, you guys need to express your feelings,” Nahid said, “We want to provide a safe space in License to Freedom for them.”

Coping with Trump’s funding cuts 

The life of a refugee has never been easy in the U.S., but the Trump era has brought another level of fear.

In July, the federal administration cut support systems for refugees and asylees. Trump then set the lowest refugee admissions cap in the 45-year history of the program.

Sundus Al Mithiab is a case manager from the Majdal Center, an El Cajon organization that does advocacy and outreach with Arab immigrants and refugees. She said the Trump administration’s changes have directly impacted clients they work with.

“We are seeing an increase in fear related to immigration status,” Al Mithiab said. “Individuals with work authorization, pending green card applications, or those planning to apply for citizenship are concerned that using public benefits may negatively affect their future immigration outcomes. This fear often leads them to avoid or delay accessing services, even when they qualify.”

And the challenges aren’t just coming from the federal government. Last February, the city of El Cajon also passed a resolution that declares the city is not a sanctuary city for immigrants.

“(U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement) ICE have a lot of power,” Ahmed said. “And the city of El Cajon gave them more power by removing (the) city of El Cajon from being a sanctuary city. Our job is to tell them to don't walk without your immigration status (papers) ... I'm a U.S. citizen, I've been here for 25 years. I don't walk out of my house or the office without my passport.”

The shifting immigration policy and rhetoric is something that folks at License to Freedom are navigating with their clients.

“I can tell it impacted a lot of work here especially in the city of El Cajon, especially organizations who offer mental health services or focusing on refugees like us,” Ahmed said. “We have not been impacted yet.”

She said it was jarring for her to see the shift in rhetoric against the refugee community.

“I remember I came five days after September 11th,” Ahmed said. “People told me they (are) going to deport you. Let me tell you something, I was treated with respect, and love, and kindness, even during that difficult time. I received fast political asylum. But now, I don't know what happened. I hope things will change. I think things will change.”

Ahmed believes, despite these setbacks, the businesses and community must persist and continue to pursue their dreams in El Cajon.

Wahid Sediqi is part of that story. He moved to the U.S. from Afghanistan 10 years ago and is a U.S. citizen.

“At the beginning, very hard,” he said. “You work like a machine … I work day shift, night shift.”

Sediqi started out driving Uber. Eventually, he and his business partner scraped together enough money to establish Kabul Green Market, which he says is El Cajon’s first Afghan market.

“Eight years ago there was not Afghan bread here,” Sediqi said.

Now, the smell of bread baking on the walls of the oven, wafts through the store in the mornings, giving the new Afghan refugees a slice of home.

“People (are) thinking, we are going shopping in our own country,” Sediqi said. “We have everything in our stores. “

This growth in Afghan business and representation in El Cajon is something Sediqi sees as an important reason why many come here.

“The city look(s) like their countries, that's why the people move here,” Sediqi said.

El teatro llevaba años prácticamente vacío, y se notaba. Muchas de las paredes estaban desnudas. El piso estaba cubierto de polvo y excremento de paloma. En la parte trasera del edificio, una sección del techo faltaba, dejando ver una franja de cielo azul.

Pero, en cuestión de meses, prometió Timothy Kelley, con su voz resonando entre las paredes, el histórico edificio estaría renovado y en funcionamiento.

Kelley es fundador y miembro de la mesa directiva de la Fundación Comunitaria de Brawley, una organización sin fines de lucro registrada en la ciudad de Brawley, al norte del Valle Imperial. Una mañana reciente, estaba parado dentro del teatro que estaba en remodelación, en el centro de la ciudad, explicando el trabajo del grupo.

La fundación, dijo Kelley, fue creada para revitalizar el centro de Brawley invirtiendo en edificios antiguos, rehabilitándolos y usando las ganancias para comprar otras propiedades, una estrategia común entre organizaciones comunitarias de desarrollo urbano.

“La mayoría de la gente no invertiría en una propiedad así”, dijo. “Nosotros sí.”

Pero la Fundación Comunitaria de Brawley no solo ha invertido en edificios del centro de la ciudad.

Una investigación de KPBS encontró que la organización también es dueña del Centro Regional de Detención Imperial, una de las ocho cárceles para migrantes que opera el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos.

Por más de una década, la fundación ha estado profundamente involucrada en las operaciones del centro de detención, según cientos de páginas de declaraciones fiscales y otros documentos obtenidos por KPBS a través de solicitudes de registros públicos.

La organización es dueña del edificio y del terreno donde se encuentra a través de una empresa subsidiaria llamada Imperial Valley Gateway Center LLC. Hace años, tuvo un papel clave para conseguir el financiamiento y construir el centro de detención cerca de Calexico, a unos 32 kilómetros al sur de Brawley.

Registros públicos de impuestos muestran que la fundación ha usado su estatus como organización sin fines de lucro para obtener al menos $6 millones de dólares en exenciones especiales de impuestos sobre la propiedad del centro de detención desde 2016. Este tipo de beneficios normalmente se reservan para organizaciones benéficas, hospitales, instituciones científicas y grupos religiosos.

Tanto autoridades fiscales estatales como del condado aprobaron esas exenciones. La Junta Estatal de Ecualización de California aprobó la solicitud inicial de la fundación en 2015, y desde entonces el tasador del condado ha autorizado las exenciones año tras año.

La mayor parte de los aproximadamente $40 millones de dólares que la fundación recibe cada año proviene de “cuotas del centro de detención” pagadas por ICE y por Management and Training Corporation (MTC), la empresa contratista con sede en Utah que opera el centro. Eso de acuerdo con Kelley y una auditoría de 2018 presentada ante la oficina del fiscal general de California.

La fundación asegura que su relación con el centro de detención demuestra la capacidad de la organización para encontrar recursos y su esfuerzo por generar empleos y desarrollo en el Valle Imperial, un condado rural donde el 87% de los residentes se identifica como latino y donde es difícil encontrar trabajos bien pagados.

Pero la idea de que un centro de detención de ICE pueda representar un beneficio para la comunidad está, por decirlo de alguna manera, en disputa.

En los años desde que el Centro Regional de Detención Imperial comenzó a detener migrantes, MTC ha sido acusada de no brindar atención médica adecuada, violar los derechos civiles de las personas detenidas y usar el aislamiento como represalia.

Ahora, en medio de la campaña de deportaciones masivas cada vez más letal del presidente Donald Trump, dos migrantes han muerto tras sufrir crisis de salud dentro del centro. Legisladores estatales y federales han propuesto distintas medidas para endurecer las regulaciones sobre las cárceles migratorias federales, incluyendo aumentar impuestos a las empresas contratistas con fines de lucro.

Kristian Salgado, organizadora del grupo pro derechos de los migrantes Imperial Liberation Collaborative, con sede en el Valle Imperial, dijo que la participación de la fundación en el centro de detención es profundamente preocupante.

“No veo al centro de detención como un beneficio para la comunidad, para nada”, dijo Salgado. “No creo que los empleos que genera realmente compensen el daño que provoca.”

Expertos en políticas para organizaciones sin fines de lucro y en el sistema penitenciario estadounidense afirmaron que el acuerdo era inusual. Uno de ellos señaló que planteaba dudas sobre si la fundación debería recibir dichas exenciones fiscales.

"Puedo darles mi opinión personal", dijo Geoff Green, director de la California Association of Nonprofits. "Para mí, eso no suena a un propósito benéfico".

‘Tuvimos que encontrar una organización sin fines de lucro’

En mayo de 2013, la Junta de Supervisores del Condado Imperial se reunió en el edificio administrativo del condado, de color arena, en el centro de El Centro. Estaban ahí para realizar una audiencia pública sobre el acuerdo financiero del centro de detención.

A la reunión asistieron pocas personas. Tom DuBose, consultor del proyecto, explicó los planes para la instalación. (DuBose no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios para esta historia.)

Según DuBose, el centro de detención fue propuesto por Hale-Mills Construction, una constructora con sede en Texas. El proyecto se construiría en el distrito Gateway, un área de unas 1,800 acres alrededor del nuevo cruce fronterizo entre Calexico, una pequeña ciudad estadounidense, y la extensa ciudad mexicana de Mexicali.

El dinero para construir las instalaciones provendría de bonos municipales exentos de impuestos, obtenidos mediante un acuerdo con el condado vecino de La Paz, Arizona.

“Se crearán empleos muy bien remunerados”, dijo DuBose. “Y esperamos que, en el futuro, veamos más proyectos como este”.

Todos los presentes ya comprendían la importancia de los empleos para el condado de Imperial.

La región agrícola rural tiene una de las tasas de desempleo más altas de California. Las agencias gubernamentales locales, las prisiones y otros organismos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley ofrecen la mayor parte del trabajo, seguidas por la agricultura, según un análisis de 2021 del San Diego-Imperial Center of Excellence for Labor Market Research.

Sin embargo, DuBose añadió algo más. Dijo que los promotores necesitaban una organización sin fines de lucro para participar.

“El tipo de proyecto que es, y la forma en que se financia, requiere la participación de una organización sin fines de lucro”, dijo.

No es inusual que empresas privadas participen en la gestión de centros de detención federales.

La privatización se ha vuelto más común en las últimas décadas, a medida que el gobierno estadounidense ha detenido a un número creciente de inmigrantes, según Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, analista del Migration Policy Institute, un centro de estudios con sede en Washington, D.C.

Otro ejemplo es el Centro de Detención de Otay Mesa en San Diego, administrado por CoreCivic, una empresa privada de prisiones con sede en Tennessee. En el condado de Imperial, el plan inicial era que MTC administrara las instalaciones.

Pero lo que hizo notable el caso del condado de Imperial fue el esfuerzo de los promotores por involucrar a una organización sin fines de lucro. Esto les daría un amplio acceso a bonos exentos de impuestos a través del mercado de bonos municipales, explicó Todd Ely, director del Centro para el Gobierno Local de la Universidad de Colorado en Denver.

Según Ely, los bonos municipales permiten a los gobiernos estatales y locales obtener préstamos rápidamente para grandes proyectos de infraestructura. Los promotores privados solo pueden acceder a ese mercado de bonos a través de ciertas agencias gubernamentales, razón por la cual necesitaban obtener su financiación a través de un condado de Arizona.

Ely afirmó que es lógico que los promotores del centro de detención prefieran bonos exentos de impuestos, que tienen tasas de interés más bajas. También señaló que las organizaciones sin fines de lucro pueden evitar ciertas limitaciones en la cantidad que pueden solicitar en préstamo.

Sin embargo, Ely comentó que el acuerdo en general resulta un tanto extraño.

“Es una estructura que, personalmente, no había visto antes”, dijo Ely. “Se puede apreciar todo el ecosistema que hay detrás del desarrollo de este centro de detención”.

Putzel-Kavanaugh dijo que tampoco conocía ningún acuerdo similar.

“Me intriga que sea una organización sin fines de lucro”, comentó. “Nunca había oído hablar de algo así”.

'Welfare Exemption'

Conforme avanzaba la audiencia aquella mañana de mayo de 2013, funcionarios del Condado Imperial comenzaron a enfrentar preguntas más directas. Un residente y propietario de terrenos cercanos, Eric Rice, preguntó si el proyecto recibiría algún tipo de exención fiscal.

“Hemos escuchado constantemente rumores de que estará exento de pagar impuestos sobre la propiedad”, dijo Rice. “Y obviamente eso significaría un aumento para todos los demás.”

Los impuestos sobre la propiedad son una fuente importante de ingresos para el gobierno del Condado Imperial, que con frecuencia batalla para conseguir dinero para infraestructura básica. En 2024, el año más reciente con datos disponibles, esos impuestos representaron alrededor del 10% de los ingresos del condado, según la Oficina del Contralor Estatal de California.

El entonces director ejecutivo del condado de Imperial, Ralph Cordova, respondió tajantemente a la pregunta de Rice.

Según declaraciones de DuBose ese día, la oficina de Cordova había apoyado los planes para el centro de detención e incluso había ayudado a revisar la legislación estatal para buscar maneras en que el gobierno del condado pudiera participar. (Cordova no respondió a la solicitud de comentarios).

Sin embargo, el director ejecutivo del condado le dijo a Rice que su gobierno no tenía ninguna potestad sobre los impuestos del centro de detención.

"Ni yo ni el condado estamos en posición de eximir de ningún tipo de impuesto a la propiedad", dijo Cordova. "No tenemos autoridad para hacerlo".

Pero eso no era cierto.

Una oficina del condado, la del tasador del condado de Imperial, tenía la autoridad para eximir del pago de impuestos sobre la propiedad mediante ciertas exenciones, incluida una reducción fiscal estatal especial denominada Welfare Exemption.

Y tan solo siete meses después de aquella reunión de la junta de supervisores, Timothy Kelley presentó su primera solicitud de dicha exención ante la oficina del tasador.

Los votantes de California aprobaron por primera vez la Welfare Exemption en la década de 1940.

Inicialmente, su objetivo era apoyar a hospitales, organizaciones religiosas y organizaciones benéficas, incluidas las fundaciones comunitarias. Desde entonces, la legislatura estatal la ha ampliado para incluir la investigación científica y ciertos tipos de vivienda asequible.

Green, líder de la California Association of Nonprofits, afirmó que la visión era eximir del pago de ciertos impuestos a las organizaciones que ya prestan servicios al público.

“La idea detrás de cualquier organización exenta de impuestos es que su mera existencia es al menos tan valiosa como cualquier impuesto que se pagaría al erario público”, explicó. “Dado que los servicios y los propósitos de la organización son de interés público”.

Obtener esta exención fiscal es un proceso de dos pasos.

Primero, los grupos deben solicitar un certificado especial llamado Certificado de Autorización Organizacional (OCC, por sus siglas en inglés) a la Junta de Igualación de California, que supervisa el sistema de impuestos a la propiedad del estado. Luego, deben presentar su caso ante el tasador del condado correspondiente.

La Fundación Comunitaria de Brawley — y Kelley en particular — inició este proceso apenas unos meses después de la votación de los supervisores, según muestran los documentos obtenidos por KPBS.

Al principio, la Junta de Igualación rechazó la idea. En mayo de 2014, funcionarios estatales emitieron un informe en el que declaraban que la solicitud de la fundación era "incompleta". Señalaron que el propósito declarado de la LLC subsidiaria era construir y operar un centro de detención con capacidad para 781 personas.

“Les informamos que … la actividad principal de la LLC no cumple con los requisitos para la exención por beneficencia”, indicaba el informe de la Junta.

Los abogados de la fundación se opusieron. En cartas obtenidas por KPBS, argumentaron que operar un centro de detención era una causa benéfica porque reducía la carga de trabajo de las agencias gubernamentales. Afirmaron que la fundación priorizaría la colaboración con las autoridades estatales, pero añadieron que su única propuesta por escrito era para trabajar con ICE.

Los abogados también citaron el teatro Brawley y otras renovaciones en el centro de la ciudad como prueba de las iniciativas para mejorar la comunidad.

Los abogados de la fundación afirmaron que el beneficio era importante para el futuro del proyecto del centro de detención. En un informe de septiembre de 2014 que detallaba los beneficios políticos de otorgar la exención fiscal, indicaron que el centro proporcionaría cerca de 200 empleos a tiempo completo y un total de $13 millones de dólares en salarios anuales.

“Para que este desarrollo económico siga avanzando en el segundo condado más pobre de California, la fundación necesita saber si el estado respetará la exención del impuesto a la propiedad y la tratará como a los hospitales y otras organizaciones sin fines de lucro que alivian la carga del gobierno”, decía el informe.

Un año después, los funcionarios estatales respondieron. Habían aprobado la solicitud de la fundación.

Una década de beneficios fiscales

Desde entonces, Kelley ha solicitado cada año la exención fiscal para beneficiarios de asistencia social a la oficina del tasador del condado de Imperial. Y desde 2016, los funcionarios del condado se la han concedido todos los años.

Esto ha reducido drásticamente el valor imponible del centro de detención, eximiendo a la fundación del pago de al menos $6 millones de dólares en impuestos sobre la propiedad durante la última década.

El año pasado, por ejemplo, el centro de detención y el terreno sobre el que se asienta tenían un valor superior a los $75 millones de dólares, según la oficina del tasador. Pero gracias a la exención, la organización sin fines de lucro solo tuvo que pagar impuestos sobre la propiedad por $14 millones de dólares de ese valor total.

Esta exención también ha reducido significativamente la cantidad que la fundación ha aportado a los bonos locales del Distrito Escolar Unificado de Calexico y del Imperial Valley College.

Según la auditoría de 2018 presentada ante la Fiscalía General de California, la fundación creó su filial con el propósito de construir, poseer y operar un centro de detención en el condado de Imperial. La auditoría reveló que la principal fuente de ingresos de la fundación proviene de los detenidos en dicho centro.

Para Green, líder de la asociación de organizaciones sin fines de lucro, el acuerdo general plantea numerosas dudas sobre si la fundación debería recibir esas exenciones fiscales.

Una cosa sería que la fundación se hubiera creado hace 20 años para mejorar la vida de los residentes de Brawley mediante la renovación de edificios antiguos y que posteriormente decidiera incluir el centro de detención en esa estrategia, afirmó. Otra muy distinta sería que el propósito principal de la fundación fuera construir y operar un centro de detención financiado exclusivamente mediante contratos gubernamentales.

“Existe una prueba de apoyo público asociada al estatus de organización sin fines de lucro”, dijo Green. “Hay un par de cosas más que parecerían contravenirla”.

Enfatizó que se requeriría un examen minucioso de cómo se constituyó y financió la fundación a lo largo de los años para determinarlo.

En términos generales, Green señaló que la Welfare Exemption puede variar mucho de un condado a otro. Esto se debe a que los tasadores locales tienen amplias facultades para decidir si otorgan o no dichas exenciones.

"Para bien o para mal, eso entra en el terreno de la política local", dijo Green. "En algunos casos, se puede obtener una respuesta diferente de un condado a otro para una solicitud que, en esencia, es la misma".

Green afirmó que esta es la única exención fiscal estatal que conoce que se gestiona de esta manera.

‘Están lucrando con esto’

Activistas locales por los derechos de los migrantes dicen sentirse confundidos e incómodos ante la idea de que una organización benéfica pueda ser dueña de un centro de detención.

La organización de Salgado, Imperial Liberation Collaborative, ya había alertado anteriormente sobre las condiciones dentro del centro como parte de sus esfuerzos por visitar a las personas detenidas y conectarlas con amistades o familiares.

En una carta enviada en 2022 a la Oficina de Derechos Civiles del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de Estados Unidos, cinco hombres aseguraron que estaban detenidos en “condiciones tortuosas”. Una persona dijo que le servían pollo mal cocido y que un guardia lo vigilaba mientras se bañaba. Otro aseguró que le negaron tratamiento para un dolor de espalda que después resultó ser una condición grave en la columna.

En 2021, Carlos Murillo Vega, quien creció en el Condado Imperial, demandó a MTC por presuntamente mantenerlo en aislamiento durante más de un año. Murillo y MTC llegaron a un acuerdo confidencial a finales de 2023.

Desde que el presidente Donald Trump asumió el cargo el año pasado e inició su campaña de deportaciones masivas, dos hombres originarios de China y Honduras murieron tras sufrir emergencias médicas dentro del centro. En reportes posteriores, investigadores de ICE señalaron que ambos sufrieron complicaciones cardíacas repentinas.

Salgado, integrante de Imperial Liberation Collaborative, señaló que la empresa contratada por ICE para operar el centro es una compañía con fines de lucro.

“La extensión de eso sería MTC”, dijo. “Están lucrando con esto.”

En un comunicado enviado a KPBS, el portavoz de ICE, Jason Sweeney, negó que se utilice aislamiento en el centro. También calificó las denuncias sobre mala atención médica y comida mal cocida como “acusaciones recicladas” por activistas defensores de los derechos de los migrantes que se oponen a la detención de inmigrantes por parte del gobierno federal.

“ICE brinda servicios integrales de apoyo a todas las personas bajo custodia”, escribió Sweeney. “Cualquier muerte bajo custodia de ICE se toma con seriedad y se revisa a fondo conforme a las políticas establecidas.”

Sweeney remitió las preguntas sobre los acuerdos financieros del centro a las empresas contratistas.

Por su parte, Emily Lawhead, portavoz de MTC, rechazó hacer comentarios para KPBS y devolvió las preguntas a ICE.

Funcionarios tributarios estatales y del condado, contactados por KPBS para obtener comentarios, han intentado eludir la responsabilidad de las exenciones fiscales.

Según consta en los registros, la Junta Estatal de Igualación realizó un análisis exhaustivo de los documentos de la fundación.

John Taylor, portavoz de la Junta de Igualación, rechazó reiteradas solicitudes de entrevista. En un correo electrónico, indicó que el personal había revisado una amplia gama de registros de la organización sin fines de lucro, incluidos los documentos fundacionales, los estados financieros, un acuerdo operativo y una carta de exención de impuestos del IRS.

Taylor no especificó si la junta había tomado alguna medida para auditar o verificar las actividades de la fundación. Se negó a explicar por qué la agencia cambió de rumbo tras su primera conclusión, remitiendo a KPBS a los informes de la junta.

En cambio, afirmó que el tasador del condado de Imperial era el responsable de decidir si el uso real de la propiedad por parte de la organización cumplía los requisitos para la exención.

Funcionarios del condado de Imperial indicaron que habían expresado sus dudas sobre las exenciones fiscales al estado.

“Originalmente, la oficina del tasador tenía dudas sobre si este concepto o propuesta calificaría para la exención”, escribió Jack Dunnam, actual tasador adjunto del condado, en un correo electrónico. “El tasador anterior, Roy Buckner, lo presentó a la Junta de Igualación para su análisis y orientación”.

Dunnam compartió con KPBS un análisis de 2015 de la Junta de Igualación que respaldaba la concesión de las exenciones fiscales.

“La oficina del tasador basó su decisión exclusivamente en el análisis y las conclusiones”, escribió Dunnam en un correo electrónico a KPBS. “No tomamos estas decisiones a la ligera, especialmente una como esta”.

‘Una verdadera victoria para todos’

Kelley afirmó que nunca fue su intención ser propietario de un centro de detención de ICE. Sin embargo, aseguró no arrepentirse.

El miembro de la junta directiva de la fundación proviene de una de las familias agrícolas más influyentes del Valle Imperial, quienes, según los historiadores, aún ejercen una gran influencia en la región. Si bien el 87% del condado se identifica como latino, la mayor parte de sus tierras y riquezas se concentran en manos de estos agricultores: un pequeño grupo de familias adineradas, en su mayoría blancas.

(En una llamada posterior, Kelley afirmó identificarse como de ascendencia irlandesa y mexicoamericana).

Kelley es miembro de la junta directiva del Partido Republicano local y fue elegido recientemente para el Consejo de Brawley. Se desempeña como presidente de la Corporación de Desarrollo Económico del Valle Imperial, la cual participó activamente en el desarrollo del centro de detención.

En entrevistas con KPBS, Kelley declaró que crearon la Fundación Comunitaria de Brawley mucho antes de que surgiera la propuesta para el centro de detención. Él y otros funcionarios de desarrollo económico buscaron primero en otras organizaciones sin fines de lucro locales, pero la fundación fue la primera dispuesta a asumir el proyecto.

Según Kelley, las instalaciones estaban originalmente destinadas al Servicio de Alguaciles de Estados Unidos, no al ICE. Añadió que, cuando el proceso de aprobación ya estaba avanzado, comenzaron a colaborar con el ICE. En sus cartas de 2014 a la Junta de Igualación, la fundación menciona reuniones previas con el Servicio de Alguaciles de Estados Unidos.

Pero Kelley afirmó no ver ninguna diferencia entre las operaciones de una organización benéfica pública y las de un centro federal de detención de inmigrantes. Argumentó que muchas instituciones, como los grandes bancos, también tienen organizaciones sin fines de lucro asociadas.

El director de la fundación aseguró que ningún miembro de su junta directiva, incluido él mismo, recibe beneficio económico alguno de las actividades del centro de detención. Esto se confirma en los registros fiscales federales de la fundación, donde no figura ningún salario para ningún miembro de la junta.

Kelley afirmó que consideraba el centro de detención un logro extraordinario para el fortalecimiento de la economía del valle. Añadió que consideraría la construcción de más centros de detención si surgiera la oportunidad.

"Nunca imaginamos que tendríamos la oportunidad de crear tantos empleos", declaró. "Desde el punto de vista de la fundación, creo que es un verdadero éxito, una victoria para todos".

Kelley defendió la decisión de solicitar exenciones fiscales para el centro, argumentando que permiten a la fundación cobrar menos por sus servicios y competir mejor por contratos.

En definitiva, Kelley afirmó sentirse orgulloso del nivel de atención brindado en el centro. Indicó que habían proporcionado a los detenidos acceso a materiales de arte, cursos de formación profesional y adaptaciones religiosas en las comidas.

"Cuando entro allí, veo a personas en circunstancias sumamente difíciles", declaró Kelley. "Pero, dadas estas condiciones, creo que estamos ofreciendo el mejor servicio posible".

(En una llamada posterior, Kelley aclaró que, al hablar de "circunstancias difíciles", se refería a la situación de las personas en Estados Unidos sin estatus legal, no a las condiciones dentro del centro).

Kelley mencionó que ha conversado con otros promotores inmobiliarios privados sobre la posibilidad de construir más centros de detención de inmigrantes en el Valle.

El pasado mes de marzo, un pequeño grupo de activistas se reunió frente al centro de detención.

Se reunieron para recordar a las dos personas que fallecieron tras permanecer recluidas en el centro desde enero. El evento formaba parte de la iniciativa del Imperial Liberation Collaborative, cuyo objetivo era instar a los funcionarios de salud del condado a inspeccionar las instalaciones.

Entre la multitud, Salgado, acompañada de su familia, escuchó cómo otros activistas leían sus nombres en voz alta: Huabing Xie y Luis Beltrán Yáñez Cruz.

Para Salgado, el conocimiento de la participación de la fundación en el centro de detención también ha suscitado interrogantes más profundos.

Esta residente de Calexico, perteneciente a la tercera generación de su familia en la zona, ha intentado comprender la relación de la fundación con el centro de detención desde el año pasado. Salgado se pregunta por qué hubo tan poca resistencia al centro de detención en 2014, el año en que se graduó de la universidad. Según recuerda, le parecía que nadie sabía que se estaba construyendo el centro.

"Parecía que el centro de detención se había instalado a escondidas en nuestro condado", declaró Salgado.

The theater had sat mostly empty for years, and it felt that way. Many of the walls were bare. Dust and pigeon droppings coated the floor. At the back of the building, part of the ceiling was missing, revealing a band of blue sky.

Within months though, Timothy Kelley promised, his voice echoing between the walls, the historic building would be renovated and operational.

Kelley is a founder and board member of the Brawley Community Foundation, a registered nonprofit organization based in the northern Imperial Valley city of Brawley. On a recent morning, he stood inside the half-finished theater in the city center, explaining the group’s work.

The foundation, Kelley said, was created to improve downtown Brawley by investing in old buildings, improving them and using the money to buy up other properties — a common strategy among community development nonprofits.

“Most people would not invest in that type of property,” he said. “We would.”

But the Brawley Community Foundation has invested in more than just downtown buildings.

The nonprofit, a KPBS investigation found, is also the owner of the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, one of eight immigrant jails that U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement operates in California.

For over a decade, the foundation has been deeply involved in the operations of the detention center, according to hundreds of pages of tax records and other documents obtained by KPBS through public records requests.

The nonprofit owns the building and the land beneath it through a subsidiary company, Imperial Valley Gateway Center LLC. Years ago, it played a key role in securing financing for and constructing the detention center near the city of Calexico, 20 miles south of Brawley.

The foundation has used its nonprofit status to secure at least $6 million in special property tax breaks on the detention center since 2016, public tax records show. These are benefits typically reserved for charities, hospitals, scientific institutions and faith organizations.

State and county tax officials both signed off on those tax breaks. The state Board of Equalization granted the foundation’s initial application in 2015, and the county assessor has issued the tax breaks for every year since.

Most of the foundation’s roughly $40 million in annual revenue comes from “detention center fees” paid by ICE and Management and Training Corporation (MTC), the Utah-based contractor that runs the facility. That’s according to Kelley and a 2018 audit filed with the California attorney general’s office.

The foundation says their arrangement with the detention center is a sign of the nonprofit’s resourcefulness and wide-ranging effort to bring jobs and growth to the Valley — a rural county where 87% of residents identify as Latino and well-paying jobs are hard to come by.

But the idea that an ICE detention center could serve as a community benefit is, to say the least, in dispute.

In the years since the Imperial Regional Detention Facility began holding immigrants, MTC has been accused of not providing adequate medical care, violating detainees’ civil rights and using solitary confinement in retaliation.

Now, amid President Donald Trump’s increasingly deadly mass deportation effort, two immigrants have died after experiencing health crises at the facility. State and federal lawmakers have proposed various measures cracking down on federal immigration jails, including raising taxes on for-profit contractors.

Kristian Salgado, an organizer with the Imperial Valley-based immigrant rights group Imperial Liberation Collaborative, said the foundation’s involvement with the detention facility is deeply upsetting.

“I don't see the detention center as a community benefit at all,” Salgado said. “I don't think the jobs that come out of it really outweigh the harm that it creates.”

Experts on nonprofit policy and the U.S. detention system said the arrangement was unusual. One said it raised questions about whether the foundation should be receiving those tax breaks at all.

“I can give you a personal opinion,” said Geoff Green, who leads the California Association of Nonprofits. “That does not, to me, sound like a charitable purpose.”

‘We had to find a nonprofit’

In May 2013, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors gathered at the county’s sand-colored administration building in downtown El Centro. They were there to hold a public hearing on the financing arrangement for the detention center.

The meeting was sparsely attended. Tom DuBose, a consultant on the project, outlined their plans for the facility. (DuBose did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

The detention center, DuBose said, was proposed by a Texas-based construction firm, Hale-Mills Construction. It would be built in the Gateway district, the 1,800-acre area surrounding the new border crossing between the small U.S. city of Calexico and the sprawling Mexican metropolis of Mexicali.

The money to build the facility would come from tax-exempt municipal bonds acquired through an arrangement with the neighboring county of La Paz, Arizona.

“There’s going to be some very good-paying jobs out there,” DuBose said. “And we hope that, in the future, we’ll see more of this.”

Everyone in the room already understood what jobs meant to Imperial County.

The rural farming region has among the highest unemployment rates in California. Local government agencies, prisons and other law enforcement agencies offer the largest share of work, with agriculture coming up second, according to a 2021 analysis by the San Diego-Imperial Center of Excellence for Labor Market Research.

Then, however, DuBose said something else. He said the developers needed a nonprofit organization to take part.

“The type of project it is, and the way it's funded, needs to have a nonprofit involved,” he said.

It’s not unusual for private companies to play a role in running federal detention centers.

Privatization has become more common in recent decades as the U.S. government has detained growing numbers of immigrants, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

Another example is the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, which is run by CoreCivic, a Tennessee-based private prison company. In Imperial County, the plan from the beginning was for MTC to run the facility.

But what made the Imperial County case notable was the effort by the developers to get a nonprofit involved. That would give them broad access to tax-exempt bonds through the municipal bond market, said Todd Ely, the director of the Center for Local Government at University of Colorado Denver.

Municipal bonds allow state and local governments to quickly borrow money for major infrastructure projects, Ely said. Private developers can only access that bond market by going through certain government agencies, which is why the developers needed to acquire their financing through an Arizona county.

Ely said it makes sense that the detention center’s developers would want tax-exempt bonds, which have lower interest rates. He also said that nonprofit organizations are able to avoid certain limits on the amount they can borrow.

But Ely said the overall arrangement stands out as somewhat strange.

“It is, kind of, a setup that I haven’t seen before, personally,” Ely said. “Where you can kind of see this ecosystem of this effort to develop this detention center.”

Putzel-Kavanaugh said she wasn’t aware of any similar arrangements either.

“I am intrigued that it's a nonprofit,” she said. “I haven't heard of that before.”

The Welfare Exemption

As the morning wore on at that hearing back in May 2013, Imperial County officials were facing more pointed questions. One resident, a nearby landowner named Eric Rice, asked whether the project would be receiving any tax breaks.

“We are hearing rumors consistently that it will be exempt from paying property taxes,” Rice said. “And, of course, that obviously means an increase for all the rest of us.”

Property taxes are an important source of revenue for the Imperial County government, which often struggles to find the money for basic infrastructure. In 2024, the most recent year available, property taxes were about 10% of the county’s income, according to the state controller’s Office.

Then-Imperial County CEO Ralph Cordova responded sharply to Rice’s question.

Cordova’s office had supported plans for the detention center, and even helped scour state law to look for ways the county government could be involved, according to statements from DuBose that day. (Cordova did not respond to a request for comment.)

Yet, the county executive told Rice his government didn’t have any power over the detention center’s taxes.

“I’m not, nor is the county, in the position to waive any kind of property tax,” Cordova said. “We don’t have the authority to do so.”

But that wasn’t true.

One county office, the Imperial County Assessor, did have the authority to waive property taxes through certain exemptions — including a special state tax break called a Welfare Exemption.

And just seven months after that supervisors’ meeting, Timothy Kelley submitted his first application for that exemption to the assessor’s office.

California voters first adopted the Welfare Exemption in the 1940s.

In the beginning, it was meant to support hospitals, faith organizations and charities, which can include community foundations. Since then, the state legislature has also expanded it to include scientific research and certain types of affordable housing.

Green, the California Association of Nonprofits leader, said the vision was to excuse organizations that already serve the public from paying certain taxes.

“The idea behind any tax exempt organization is that the very existence of the organization is at least as valuable as any tax that would be paid into the public trust,” he said. “Since the services, the purposes of the organization themselves, are public-serving.”

Getting the tax break is a two-step process.

First, groups have to apply for a special certificate called an Organizational Clearance Certificate (OCC) from the California Board of Equalization, which oversees the state’s property tax system. Then they have to make their case to their local county assessor.

The Brawley Community Foundation — and Kelley in particular — began that process just months after the supervisors’ vote, records obtained by KPBS show.

At first, the Board of Equalization balked at the idea. In May 2014, state officials issued a finding sheet stating the foundation’s claim was “incomplete.” They pointed out that the subsidiary LLC’s stated purpose was to build and operate a 781-bed detention facility.

“Please be advised that… the primary activity of the LLC does not qualify for the welfare exemption,” the Board’s finding sheet read.

The foundation’s lawyers pushed back. In letters obtained by KPBS, they argued that operating a detention center was a charitable cause because it reduced strain on government agencies. They said the foundation would prioritize working with state authorities, but added that their only written proposal was for working with ICE.

The lawyers also cited the Brawley theater and other renovations in the city’s downtown as evidence of work to improve the community.

The foundation’s lawyers said the benefit was important to the future of the detention center project. In a September 2014 white paper outlining the “policy benefits” of granting the tax break, they said the facility would provide nearly 200 full-time jobs and $13 million in total annual salaries.

“To keep this economic development moving forward in the second poorest County in the California (sic), the foundation needs to know whether the state will honor the property tax exemption and treat the foundation like hospitals and other nonprofits that reduce the burdens on government,” the white paper read.

A year later, state officials responded. They had approved the foundation’s application.

A decade of tax breaks

Since then, Kelley has applied every year to the Imperial County Assessor’s office for the Welfare Exemption. And every year since 2016, county officials have granted it.

That has dramatically reduced the taxable value of the detention center, excusing the foundation from paying at least $6 million in property taxes over the past decade.

Last year, for example, the detention center and the land beneath it were worth over $75 million, according to the assessor’s office. But thanks to the exemption, the nonprofit only had to pay property taxes on $14 million of that total value.

The exemption has also significantly reduced the amount the foundation has paid into local bonds for the Calexico Unified School District and Imperial Valley College.

According to the 2018 audit filed with the California attorney general’s office, the foundation created its subsidiary company for “the purpose of constructing, owning and operating a detention facility in Imperial County.” The foundation’s primary revenue stream, the audit found, is from detainees held at the facility.

To Green, the association of nonprofits leader, the overall arrangement raises numerous questions about whether the foundation should be receiving those tax breaks.

It would be one thing if the foundation was founded 20 years ago to improve the lives of residents of Brawley by renovating old buildings and that they later decided to include the detention center in that strategy, he said. It would be another thing if the foundation’s primary purpose was to build and operate a detention facility exclusively funded through government contracts.

“There's a public support test that comes with (nonprofit) status,” Green said. “There's a couple other things that would seem to violate.”

He emphasized that it would take a careful examination of how the foundation was incorporated and funded over the years to determine either way.

More broadly, Green said, the Welfare Exemption can look very different from county to county. That’s because local assessors have wide power over whether to actually issue the tax breaks.

“For better or for worse, that goes into local politics,” Green said. “You might get a different answer from county to county in some cases for what is essentially the same request.”

Green said this is the only state tax exemption he is aware of that is comanaged in this way.

‘They’re profiting off of this’

Local immigrants rights activists are confused and unsettled by the idea that a public charity could own the detention center.

Salgado’s organization, the Imperial Liberation Collaborative, has previously raised the alarm about conditions inside the facility as part of its efforts to visit people being held inside the facility and connect them with friends or family members.

In a 2022 letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights, five men said they were being held in "torturous conditions.” One person said he was served undercooked chicken and that a guard watched him while he showered. Another said he was denied treatment for back pain that turned out to be a major spinal condition.

In 2021, Carlos Murillo Vega, who grew up in Imperial County, sued MTC for allegedly holding him in solitary confinement for over a year. Murillo and MTC reached a confidential settlement in late 2023.

Since President Donald Trump took office last year and began his mass deportation effort, two men from China and Honduras have died after having health emergencies at the facility. In follow-up reports, ICE investigators said they both experienced sudden heart complications.

Salgado, the Imperial Liberation Collaborative advocate, pointed out that the ICE contractor that runs the facility is a for-profit company.

“The extension of that would be MTC, you know,” she said. “They're profiting off of this.”

In a statement to KPBS, ICE spokesperson Jason Sweeney denied any use of solitary confinement at the facility. He called the allegations of poor medical care and undercooked food “recycled claims” by immigrants’ rights advocates who oppose the federal government’s detention of immigrants.

“ICE provides comprehensive support services to all individuals in custody,” Sweeney wrote. “Any death in ICE custody is taken seriously and is thoroughly reviewed in accordance with established policy.”

Sweeney referred questions about the detention center’s financial arrangements to its contractors.

MTC spokesperson Emily Lawhead declined KPBS’ request for comment, referring questions back to ICE.

State and county tax officials, reached for comment by KPBS, have tried to shift responsibility for the tax breaks onto one another.

The state Board of Equalization did an extensive analysis of the foundation’s documents, records show.

John Taylor, a spokesperson for the Board of Equalization, declined repeated interview requests. In an email, he said staff had reviewed a wide range of the nonprofit’s records, including founding documents, financial statements, an operating agreement and a tax exemption letter from the IRS.

Taylor did not say whether the board had taken any steps to audit or verify the foundation’s activities. He refused to elaborate on why the agency changed course after their first finding, instead referring KPBS to the board’s finding sheets.

Instead, he said the Imperial County Assessor was responsible for deciding whether an organization’s actual use of the property was eligible for the exemption.

Imperial County officials said they had raised doubts about the tax breaks with the state.

“Originally the assessor’s office had doubts about whether or not this concept or proposal would quality (sic) for the exemption,” wrote Jack Dunnam, the county’s current assistant assessor, in an email. “The former Assessor, Roy Buckner had it submitted to the BOE for analysis and direction.”

Dunnam shared with KPBS a 2015 analysis by the Board of Equalization that supported issuing the tax breaks.

“The Assessor’s Office based their decision soley (sic) on the analysis and findings,” Dunnam wrote in an email to KPBS. “We don’t make these decisions in a vacuum, especially one like this.”

‘A real win for everybody’

Kelley said it was never his plan to own an ICE detention center. But he said he has no regrets.

The foundation board member comes from one of the Imperial Valley’s powerful farming families, who historians say continue to hold great sway over the region. Although 87% of the county identifies as Latino, most of its land and wealth are concentrated in the hands of those farmers — a small group of wealthy, mostly white families.

(In a follow-up phone call, Kelley said he identifies as ethnically Irish and Mexican American.)

Kelley is a current board member of the local Republican Party and a recently-elected member of the Brawley City Council. He serves as president of the Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation, which was closely involved in the development of the detention center.

In interviews with KPBS, Kelley said they created the Brawley Community Foundation well before the proposal for a detention center arrived. He and other economic development officials looked to other local nonprofits first, but the foundation was the first one willing to take on the project.

The facility, Kelley said, was originally supposed to be for the U.S. Marshals Service, not ICE. It was only partway through the approval process, he said, that they began working with ICE instead. In their 2014 letters to the Board of Equalization, the foundation does mention previous meetings with the U.S. Marshals.

But Kelley said he didn’t see any daylight between the operations of a public charity and the operation of a federal immigrant detention center. He argued that many institutions, like major banks, also have nonprofit organizations attached.

The foundation leader said no one on the foundation’s board of directors, including himself, receives any financial benefit from the activities of the detention center. That’s supported by the foundation’s federal tax records, which list no salary for any board member.

Kelley said he viewed the detention facility as a remarkable achievement when it came to strengthening the valley’s economy. He said he would consider building more detention centers if the opportunity arose.

“We never thought that we'd be in an opportunity to create as many jobs that we did,” he said. “From a foundation standpoint, I think it’s a real success — a real win for everybody.”

Kelley defended the decision to pursue tax breaks on the facility, arguing they allow the foundation to charge less for their services and better compete for contracts.

Ultimately, Kelley said he was also proud of the standard of care provided at the facility. He said they had given detainees access to art supplies, workforce classes and religious accommodations for meals.

“When I go in there, I see people under the most difficult circumstances,” Kelley said. “But under these conditions, I think that we're providing the best service that we can.”

(In a follow-up phone call, Kelley clarified that by “difficult circumstances,” he was referring to people being in the U.S. without legal status, not conditions inside the facility.)

Kelley said he’s had conversations with other private developers about bringing more immigrant detention centers to the Valley.

This past March, a small group of activists met outside the detention center.

They were there to remember the two people who have died after being held at the facility since last January. The event was part of the Imperial Liberation Collaborative’s larger effort to urge county health officials to inspect the facility.

In the crowd, Salgado stood with her family and listened as other activists read their names aloud: Huabing Xie and Luis Beltrán Yañez Cruz.

For Salgado, the knowledge of the foundation’s involvement with the detention center has also raised deeper questions.

The third-generation Calexico resident has been trying to understand the foundation’s connections with the detention center since last year. Salgado wonders why there was so little resistance to the detention center back in 2014, the year she graduated from college. Through the haze of memory, she said, it felt like no one even knew the facility was being built.

“It felt like the detention center was snuck into our county,” Salgado said.

Agentes arrestaron a 23 miembros de la tripulación de distintos barcos en el Puerto de San Diego como parte de la “Operación Tidal Wave”, dirigida a personas sospechosas de estar involucradas con material de abuso sexual infantil, según un comunicado enviado a KPBS por Sandra Grisolia, vocera del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés).

En un comunicado por separado, la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP) informó que 27 personas fueron arrestadas y deportadas, casi todas originarias de Filipinas.

“Los oficiales confirmaron que todos los sujetos estaban involucrados en la recepción, posesión, transporte, distribución o visualización de pornografía infantil”, señaló el comunicado de CBP.

La rapidez de estas deportaciones —menos de dos semanas después de los arrestos iniciales— ha generado dudas entre expertos.

ICE rechazó una solicitud de KPBS para obtener más información sobre las personas detenidas, incluyendo sus nombres, órdenes de arresto o documentos de acusación.

“Por el momento, no tenemos nada más que agregar aparte del comunicado”, escribió Grisolia en respuesta a la solicitud de KPBS.

Mientras tanto, fiscales federales en San Diego y Los Ángeles dijeron no tener registro de cargos relacionados con la “Operación Tidal Wave”.

“No hay cargos penales pendientes en este distrito”, dijo Kelly Thornton, portavoz de la Fiscalía Federal para el Distrito Sur de California.

La portavoz de la fiscalía en Los Ángeles dijo a KPBS que su oficina “no tiene conocimiento de que este asunto haya sido presentado ante nosotros”.

La Policía Portuaria de San Diego tampoco participó en el operativo, de acuerdo con un comunicado del Puerto de San Diego.

Además, un portavoz del Consulado de Filipinas en Los Ángeles dijo por correo electrónico a KPBS que la administración Trump no informó al consulado sobre las acusaciones antes de que se hicieran públicas.

Un abogado especializado en derecho marítimo señaló que este tipo de casos normalmente son manejados por el FBI y procesados en cortes federales.

“Creo que aquí hubo algo muy particular: fue CBP e ICE quienes intervinieron y de inmediato enviaron a todos esos tripulantes de regreso a sus países de origen”, dijo Michael Winkleman en una entrevista con ABC 10News, socio informativo de KPBS.

“Pudieron haber sido acusados en tribunales estadounidenses y estar en una prisión federal, esperando cargos o juicio. Pero el hecho de que los enviaran de regreso a sus países tan rápido es bastante inusual”.

Bajo la ley migratoria, las visas pueden ser revocadas si una persona es sospechosa o arrestada por un delito, incluso si nunca se le presentan cargos formales ni es condenada. El año pasado, el secretario de Estado Marco Rubio revocó las visas de varios estudiantes que protestaron por el alto número de víctimas civiles en la guerra de Israel en Gaza.

“Negamos visas todos los días en todo el mundo por distintas razones, y eso significa que también podemos revocarlas”, dijo Rubio en ese momento. “Nadie tiene derecho garantizado a una visa”.

Aun así, expertos en políticas migratorias dicen que la falta de transparencia por parte de ICE y CBP genera preocupación por varias razones.

Primero, impide que alguien pueda verificar de manera independiente las acusaciones. En su comunicado, Grisolia dijo que ICE realizó los arrestos con base en información del Centro Nacional para Niños Desaparecidos y Explotados (NCMEC por sus siglas en inglés), pero no ofreció detalles adicionales.

El centro no respondió de inmediato a una solicitud de comentarios de KPBS.

Durante el último año ha habido varios casos en los que funcionarios del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional hicieron afirmaciones falsas sobre la supuesta criminalidad de personas detenidas.

Por ejemplo, en octubre, agentes de CBP acusaron a una mujer en Chicago —a quien dispararon cinco veces— de intentar embestirlos con su camioneta Chevy Tahoe. Más tarde, fiscales federales retiraron los cargos.

La primavera pasada, autoridades migratorias federales describieron a los 252 hombres enviados a la prisión CECOT en El Salvador como “lo peor de lo peor” y supuestos “terroristas”. Sin embargo, una investigación independiente posterior encontró que solo ocho de ellos tenían condenas por delitos violentos.

Otra preocupación es que, cuando una persona acusada de un delito grave es deportada antes de enfrentar consecuencias penales, las víctimas quedan sin acceso a la justicia.

“Si la agencia está diciendo la verdad, el hecho de que las personas sean deportadas antes de ser procesadas, antes de entender qué ocurrió realmente en estos casos y asegurarnos de que enfrenten consecuencias reales, sí es preocupante”, dijo Austin Kocher, investigador de la Universidad de Syracuse especializado en temas de aplicación de leyes migratorias.

Kocher añadió que deportar a alguien antes de completar una investigación exhaustiva también podría impedir que los investigadores obtengan más información sobre una posible red de distribución de material de abuso sexual infantil.

Agents arrested 23 crew members from multiple ships at the Port of San Diego as part of “Operation Tidal Wave,” which targeted people suspected of involvement with child sexual abuse materials, according to a statement to KPBS from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson Sandra Grisolia.

In a separate statement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said 27 people were arrested and deported, almost all of them from the Philippines.

“Officers confirmed all subjects were involved in either the receipt, possession, transportation, distribution, or viewing of child pornography,” the CBP statement said.

The quick nature of these deportations — less than two weeks after the initial arrest — raised questions among experts.

ICE declined a KPBS request for more information about the individuals arrested, including their names, warrants or any of the charging documents.

“At this time, we have nothing to add beyond the statement,” Grisolia wrote in response to the KPBS request

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors in San Diego and Los Angeles said they have no record of any charges stemming from “Operation Tidal Wave.”

“There are no pending criminal charges in this district,” said Kelly Thornton, spokesperson for the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Southern District of California.

Thornton’s counterpart in Los Angeles told KPBS their office is “not aware of this matter being brought to our attention.”

The San Diego Harbor Police also did not have any involvement in the operation, according to a statement from the Port of San Diego.

Additionally, a spokesperson for the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles told KPBS in an email that the Trump administration did not inform the consulate of the allegations before they were made public.

A maritime attorney said these types of cases are usually handled by the FBI and tried in federal court.

"I think there was something very unique here that it was CBP and ICE, and they immediately sent all those crew members back to their home countries," Michael Winkleman said in an interview with KPBS news partner ABC 10News.

"They could have been charged in U.S. courts and be in federal prison. Now awaiting charges, awaiting trial, etc. but the fact that they were sent home to their home countries, that's actually quite unique."

Under immigration law, visas can be revoked if someone is suspected or arrested of a crime — even if they are never formally charged or convicted. Last year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked the visas of several students who protested the high civilian casualty count in Israel’s war in Gaza.

“We deny visas all over the world every day for a variety of reasons, and that means we can also revoke those visas,” Rubio said at the time. “No one is entitled to a visa.”

Still, immigration policy experts say there are a couple reasons why the lack of transparency from ICE and CBP is concerning.

First, it prevents anyone from independently verifying the accusations. In her statement, Grisolia said ICE made the arrests based on information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, but didn’t provide any details.

The center did not immediately respond to an inquiry from KPBS.

Over the past year, there have been a number of cases in which Department of Homeland Security Officials made false claims about people’s criminality.

For example, in October, CBP agents accused a woman in Chicago who they shot five times of trying to ram them with her Chevy Tahoe. Federal prosecutors later dropped those charges. 

Last spring, federal immigration officials described the 252 men sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison as “worst of the worst” and alleged “terrorists.” But a later independent investigation found only eight of those men had convictions for violent offenses.

Another concern is when someone accused of a serious crime is deported before facing criminal consequences, victims are prevented from getting justice.

“If the agency is being truthful, the fact that people are deported before they are prosecuted, before we know what is going on with these cases and make sure people face real consequences is a concern,” said Austin Kocher, a researcher at Syracuse University who focuses on immigration enforcement.

Kocher added that deporting someone before completing a thorough investigation may also prevent investigators from learning more information about an alleged child sexual abuse materials operation.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection San Diego Field Office reminded travelers to declare all flowers and plant materials from Mexico as Mother's Day approaches.

Mother's Day weekend often sees an increase in travelers bringing bouquets and greenery across the border. Even a single pest or disease introduction can cause widespread damage to agriculture that can result in costly mitigation efforts, according to the agency.

Border officials encourage travelers to declare all agriculture products, including flowers and plants to avoid potential penalties and to protect U.S. agriculture.

"While these items are often intended as thoughtful gifts, they can pose a significant risk to U.S. agriculture by introducing harmful pests and plant diseases. To safeguard domestic crops and local ecosystems, plants, flowers and soil must be screened by a CBP agriculture specialist upon entry to the United States," the CBP said in a statement.

Flowers such as roses and carnations are generally admissible after inspection, but chrysanthemums cannot be brought into the U.S. from Mexico due to the risk of introducing Chrysanthemum White Rust, a destructive fungal disease. Additionally, plants intended for planting and any soil containers require proper permits, CBP officials stated.

Murraya, commonly known as orange jasmine, can host the Asian citrus psyllid, a pest that poses a major threat to U.S. citrus crops. If any part of a bouquet is found to be infested, the entire arrangement may be prohibited from entering the U.S.

CBP agriculture specialists conduct thorough inspections of all floral and plant materials at ports of entry, with some inspections that may involve physically shaking bouquets to detect hidden insects and using specialized tools to identify pests or signs of disease. When potential threats are found, samples are sent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for further analysis using advanced identification methods.

A list of prohibited and restricted items can be found on CBP's website.

“I love my job — despite all the situations one sometimes has to go through,” Urenda said.

He is from Tijuana, and described his hometown this way: “It is a city of opportunity. We are currently going through a difficult economic situation across all of Mexico and it is certainly felt here in Tijuana but the city has its good sides, its noble qualities. That’s Tijuana for you. It has always welcomed anyone who arrives.”

Urenda is bearded and barrel chested. He types like he’s punching his keyboard, writing a few questions for his next assignment. On his desk are some lucha libre figurines and a New England Patriots souvenir helmet.

At Urenda's left are a few refreshments: a water bottle, a can of coke, one half-gone Penafiel orange soda and two bottles of tequila.

And then there was the filing cabinet with memorial stickers for Tijuana journalists Margarito Martinez and Lourdes Maldonado, murdered just days apart in 2022.

Urenda was a new reporter at the time of the killings, on the job for just seven months.

“I remember we were upstairs at the time and a colleague remarked to me, ‘They killed Margarito.’ I said, "I don't know who that is, but I'm told he was a photographer,” Urenda said.

The stickers on the filing cabinet are a reminder of the risks faced by journalists in Mexico.

A dangerous place for journalists

Reporters Without Borders calls Mexico "one of the world’s most dangerous and deadly countries for journalists," with two killed there so far this year. Eight were killed in the first six months of 2025. The organization's online data goes back to 1995 and shows 185 journalist have been killed in Mexico since then.

The memory of Tijuanapress.com director and editor Vicente Calderon goes even farther back. "I began (in journalism) in 1985 and by 1988 I was aware of my first colleague being killed: Hector 'Gato' Félix,” Calderon said.

Héctor “Gato” Félix Miranda helped to found the famous investigative weekly Zeta Tijuana. Under the name "Félix el Gato," or "Felix the Cat," he wrote a column criticizing Tijuana politicians. Two men were convicted in his murder.

“When you see that there are consequences, people think twice. We haven't seen that in the recent killings in Mexico and here in Tijuana,” Calderon said.

The bookshelves in Calderon’s office are filled with old cameras, old tape recorders, books and journalism awards. He was named Journalist of the Year in 2022 by the San Diego chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, which praised him not only for his years of assisting San Diego journalists, but for being brave despite the dangers faced in his city.

On assignment

Urenda's first assignment of the day is a meeting of the Comité Ciudadano de Seguridad Pública de Tijuana — the Tijuana Citizen Public Security Committee.

He dives right into questioning committee president Edgardo Flores Campbell.

“How long will your predecessor last? And why is it important to be doing this?” Urenda asks.

Journeyman reporting, like covering committee meetings, isn't the only kind of journalism in Tijuana.

Joebeth Terriquez, nicknamed Joe Black, is a photojournalist specializing in social issues. We met up with him at the migrant shelter Movimiento Juventud 2000.

He’s known for immersing himself in his work. “I used to sleep in the camp with them and still I do that sometimes,” Terriquez said.

Time equals access for Terriquez. But that comes with its own set of dangers.

“If you want to be a journalist, this type of journalist, you got to know that some day, because of what you’re doing, something is going to go terribly wrong,” Terriquez said.

Mexico's 'mechanism' to defend journalists

Mexico has a system to protect journalists, called the Mecanismo de Protección Para Personas Defensoras de Derechos Humanos y Periodistas. It was created in 2012. At the time, the organization Justice in Mexico said the system established mechanisms "to evacuate or temporarily remove, provide body guards for, and protect the property of such individuals in danger given their line of work."

In 2019, Tijuana journalist Lourdes Maldonado stood up at a Mexico City news conference and told the then-president of Mexico she feared for her life, asking him "for your support, help, and labor justice."

She was shot in front of her Tijuana home on Jan. 23, 2022, five days after the killing of Margarito Martínez. He was also shot in front of his home in Tijuana. Three people were arrested and convicted in Maldonado's murder, and two in the Martinez killing.

But since those murders, Calderon said being a journalist isn’t any safer — and there is a new kind of threat on the rise.

“Legal harassment or the stigmatization from the government, politicians complaining about journalists being 'sicarios (hired assassins) of the pen'. Those things are making the situation more complicated,” Calderon said.

And threats of physical violence have not stopped. Terriquez says his wife has asked him to quit.

“My wife she kind of told me to drop it because I got a lot of threats … She knows that if they kill me it’s because I did something right,” Terriquez said.

In spite of the threats, Terriquez will dodge Tijuana traffic to get a photo and Urenda will question authority. Through it all, Calderon says there is hope.

“When the authorities are not paying attention, when things are not going according to the law, they call the reporters. And the reporters from Tijuana are answering,” Calderon said.

The data came in a letter response to Rep. Mike Levin, D-Oceanside, who expressed concerns about ICE's tactics during operations in Oceanside and requested information about the warrants involved and the detainees' criminal records. The latter was not provided.

"ICE possesses the unambiguous statutory authority to arrest and remove aliens unlawfully present in the United States, no matter the extent of their criminal histories," the letter from the agency read. "Such authority derives from the laws passed by Congress. These laws have stood for decades and been amended and strengthened over the years by bipartisan majorities. ICE enforces immigration law against all removable aliens, and the commission of violent crimes is not a prerequisite for enforcement. Being unlawfully present in the United States is itself a violation of federal law."

President Donald Trump had previously pledged to go after the "worst of the worst" immigrants in the country illegally, but many of those being arrested, put in ICE camps and deported have committed a civil misdemeanor and no other offenses, The Guardian reported in February.

"I suspect these high numbers are part of (White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy) Stephen Miller's demands to meet high detention quotas. What this letter does not answer is how many detainees and removals had a criminal record. That is a question that deserves an answer," Levin said. "I expect ICE to keep even more data than this, and they need to be able to provide information on where they are detaining individuals and why. This type of oversight — requiring ICE to do public reporting — is something I will continue to advocate for. This letter paints only half the picture, not a full one."

Of the more than 16,000 removals by ICE since January 2025, 10,847 were Mexican nationals, 996 from Guatemala and 544 from Venezuela with smaller figures from 116 other countries.

"I appreciate ICE's response, and it is largely consistent with what we believed to be occurring in San Diego. However, the numbers in this letter are quite troubling," said Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego. "When President Donald Trump took office, he promised the American people that his immigration agenda would target the `worst of the worst,' yet this letter raises serious questions: Are the 16,000 individuals who were removed from San Diego the `worst of the worst?' Do they have criminal records, or are these removals simply part of a broader effort to hit an arbitrary quota by this administration? Our constituents deserve to know who is being removed from their communities and why."

The American Immigration Council reported in April that two out of every three "at-large" arrests during the winter were of "people with no criminal record and just 17% had any prior criminal conviction. And out of that group, just one-third were classified as the most serious offenders by ICE."

In March, San Diego County filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration after federal officials blocked a public health inspection of the Otay Mesa Immigrant Detention Center.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was named in preliminary documents but she has since been replaced in the role by former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin.

County officials say detainees have reported freezing temperatures, untreated medical conditions and food unfit for human consumption at the facility, prompting requests for elected officials and public health personnel to inspect the prison.

However, the county's public health officer was only given limited approval to view the facility last month, while a group of elected officials that included Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and County Supervisors Terra Lawson-Remer and Paloma Aguirre were denied entry.

San Diego County Public Health Officer Dr. Sayone Thihalolipavan's inspection did not include access to medical records, confidential interviews with detainees and facility health policies, officials said.

"It's disappointing but not surprising that ICE won't admit the truth — that they're not targeting `the worst of the worst,' and are instead attempting to eliminate all forms of legal immigration," said Rep. Sara Jacobs in response to Wednesday's letter from ICE. "ICE removed over 16,000 people from San Diego — our friends, neighbors, and hardworking people — who deserve due process, and not to be disappeared without a trace. San Diegans need real answers about what's happening to people in our community, and this letter response from ICE is a joke. We will keep pressing for actual answers."

Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, said the agency was acting inside its legal purview and had a duty to act — even if a person has not yet committed a crime other than illegal entry into the United States.

"Additionally, some aliens have committed crimes in their countries of origin or last country of known residence, but those criminal histories are unknown to U.S. law enforcement," he wrote in the letter. "An untold number of other crimes have been committed by illegal aliens in the United States for which they have never been caught or charged. Finally, any crime committed by an illegal alien in the interior was a preventable one — waiting to remove an illegal alien until after the commission of a crime against an American citizen defies common sense and represents an abdication of government's responsibility to protect its citizens."

Rep. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, said the answers in the letter were not good enough.

"Donald Trump and Stephen Miller's mass deportation agenda has ripped families apart and created fear and chaos in our communities. These numbers are evidence of that," he said. "But ICE is still withholding information. This lack of accountability and clarity from ICE is unacceptable. We need answers, and we will continue to demand them."

A federal judge indicated Wednesday that he will grant a request from San Diego County to conduct a public health inspection of the Otay Mesa Detention Center, though he said some of the county's requests — such as having local lawmakers be part of the inspection team — will require additional arguments from the county.

San Diego County sued the federal government and private prison company CoreCivic earlier this year after a coalition of lawmakers — including County Supervisors Terra Lawson-Remer and Paloma Aguirre — were blocked from inspecting the facility. The county's public health officer was provided access, but county officials say that inspection did not include access to medical records, confidential interviews with detainees, and a review of facility health policies.

U.S. District Judge James Simmons agreed with the county that it has authority to evaluate the conditions of the facility, but said some other requests from the county regarding the scope of what that inspection would look like were "broad and vague."

Those requests include permitting "non-subject matter experts" to inspect the facility.

Attorneys representing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security argued in court filings that ICE determined the lawmakers who previously sought to enter the facility "were not public health professionals with the appropriate subject matter expertise to conduct health and safety inspections."

County attorneys argue in their filings that the county's health officer has the discretion to select the members of the inspection team.

Simmons, who gave both sides three weeks to file supplemental briefs on their respective positions before he would render a final decision, also said he wanted more information regarding what facility policies and procedures county officials would seek to review and how they would go about examining detainees.

Government attorneys said the county's requests to interview detainees and review their medical records raised privacy concerns. They argued detainees were provided privacy waivers during previous Department of Justice inspections at the facility, an issue county officials didn't address in their inspection requests.

The county denied that furnishing privacy waivers was the standard practice for such inspections. They argued in their filings that prior to other inspections, a notice was posted in detainee housing areas notifying any detainees who wish to speak to inspectors that they can. The county argued their team was not provided with this option during previous inspection attempts.

Durante casi un año, la ciudad de San Diego se ha estado preparando para saber cómo respondería a una operación federal de control de la inmigración a gran escala en la región.

Esos esfuerzos, presentados por primera vez en una orden ejecutiva firmada por el alcalde Todd Gloria el pasado mes de julio, incluyen la convocatoria de una mesa redonda con ejecutivos y jefes de policía de ciudades vecinas para coordinar una respuesta regional y la creación de un "equipo de respuesta integral" encargado de desarrollar un plan de seguridad conjunto.

La orden ejecutiva también establece que los funcionarios de la ciudad organizarán reuniones "con líderes comunitarios, organizaciones de derechos civiles y departamentos municipales pertinentes para evaluar los protocolos de la ciudad, monitorear el impacto en la comunidad y recomendar acciones futuras".

Casi un año después de que Gloria firmara la orden ejecutiva, los defensores de los derechos de los inmigrantes se sienten frustrados por la falta de transparencia y colaboración por parte de la alcaldía. Esta tensión surge a medida que los defensores buscan cada vez más en los gobiernos estatales y locales protección frente a las crecientes tácticas de represión migratoria de la administración Trump.

“Hemos estado esperando planes concretos de nuestro gobierno local, específicamente de la ciudad, a raíz de esa orden ejecutiva”, dijo Ian Seruelo, presidente del Consorcio de Derechos de los Inmigrantes de San Diego. “Nos preocupa mucho que no se estén discutiendo planes abiertamente ni en público, o al menos que no se compartan con diferentes grupos para que podamos aportar nuestra opinión”.

El consorcio está integrado por aproximadamente 50 organizaciones. Entre sus miembros se incluyen grupos que brindan asistencia legal gratuita, recaudan fondos para fianzas de inmigración, acompañan a personas a las audiencias judiciales de inmigración y visitan a los detenidos en el Centro de Detención de Otay Mesa.

Seruelo afirmó que su experiencia podría ayudar a los funcionarios municipales a planificar la posibilidad de una operación a gran escala del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos (ICE) en San Diego. Sin embargo, ninguno de ellos se ha reunido con la alcaldía.

KPBS dedicó tres meses a solicitar información a los funcionarios municipales sobre sus planes y presentó múltiples solicitudes de acceso a registros públicos para obtener agendas, actas, memorandos y otros documentos relacionados con la orden ejecutiva.

KPBS también le pidió a la oficina de Gloria una lista de con quién se ha reunido su equipo para “evaluar los protocolos de la ciudad, monitorear el impacto en la comunidad y recomendar acciones a futuro”. Su vocero se negó a compartir la lista y solo mencionó a una organización: Jewish Family Service de San Diego. La organización rechazó una solicitud de entrevista, pero compartió un comunicado preparado atribuido a su directora ejecutiva, Dana Toppel.

“JFS ha servido como socio comunitario y recurso experto para la oficina del alcalde de San Diego, así como para otras entidades gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, brindando orientación y recomendaciones sobre la actividad actual y potencial futura del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos en el interior del país”, dijo Toppel.

El vocero del alcalde también se negó a poner a Gloria a disposición para una entrevista. Los registros públicos difundidos por la ciudad no incluyen minutas, memorandos ni copias de un plan de respuesta. Entre los documentos sí se encontró una invitación a la mesa redonda regional que el alcalde organizó el año pasado.

Cuando se le preguntó directamente si la ciudad tenía un plan de respuesta para una operación de ICE al estilo de Minneapolis en San Diego, un portavoz dijo que su plan es "intencionalmente operativo y adaptable. No es un documento estático único, sino un conjunto de protocolos coordinados, funciones y acciones de respuesta que utilizan los departamentos para gestionar situaciones en tiempo real".

El portavoz no respondió a las preguntas posteriores en las que se le pedía que compartiera detalles específicos sobre los protocolos, las funciones o las medidas de respuesta.

Pedro Ríos, director del American Friends Service Committee, elogió la decisión de la ciudad de contar con un plan adaptativo, afirmando que le brinda a la ciudad la flexibilidad necesaria para responder a las cambiantes tácticas de aplicación de la ley del ICE.

Sin embargo, Ríos afirmó que la falta de transparencia sobre los detalles de dicho plan imposibilita que las organizaciones que trabajan con la población inmigrante de San Diego puedan evaluarlo.

“Existe la percepción de que la Alcaldía no ha hecho lo suficiente y no está tan interesada en estos temas, aunque afirme que está trabajando en ello”, declaró. “No se ha comunicado claramente al público en general”.

Esta tensión pone de manifiesto un cambio importante entre el primer y el segundo mandato de Trump.

Durante el primer mandato, los proveedores de servicios de inmigración se centraron principalmente en brindar asistencia legal y social a los inmigrantes que se encontraban en trámites migratorios, sin necesariamente protegerlos de las medidas de control migratorio.

Pero ahora, consideran que la mano dura de la administración ha obligado a la gente a adoptar una postura defensiva, y los proveedores de servicios temen que los funcionarios electos locales no estén haciendo lo suficiente para brindarles apoyo.

Múltiples capas de protección

Tras la elección de Trump en 2016, los legisladores estatales aprobaron la Acta de Valores de California, una de las tres llamadas leyes santuario que buscaban limitar la cooperación entre la policía local y los agentes federales de inmigración.

Erin Tsurumoto-Grassi, subdirectora de Alliance San Diego, calificó la Ley de Valores de California como "pionera" y señaló que varios estados están intentando aprobar legislación similar en la actualidad.

Sin embargo, señaló que la ley de 2017 tiene algunas limitaciones. Partes de ella han quedado obsoletas debido a que el ICE ha modificado sus tácticas de aplicación de la ley.

Ahora, Tsurumoto-Grassi considera la ley estatal como un punto de partida sobre el cual los condados y ciudades locales pueden desarrollarla.

“Establece un mínimo, no un máximo”, afirmó. “Y luego las jurisdicciones locales pueden ir más allá, como hemos visto suceder en varios condados del estado”.

Por ejemplo, la ley estatal de 2017 no contemplaba que los agentes del ICE usaran mascarillas y realizaran operativos en lugares sensibles como escuelas, hospitales e iglesias.

La ley no proporciona a los departamentos de policía locales directrices sobre cómo responder a las llamadas al 911 relacionadas con el ICE, ya sean de agentes que solicitan refuerzos o de miembros de la comunidad que piden ayuda.

La orden ejecutiva de Gloria estableció algunas directrices al exigir que el departamento de policía informara sobre cualquier incidente en el que agentes del Departamento de Policía de San Diego respondieran a una situación relacionada con la aplicación de las leyes federales de inmigración.

Si bien este es un paso importante, algunos defensores criticaron la orden ejecutiva por no facilitar el acceso público a dichos informes.

“Entendía que después de cada incidente se elaboraría un informe y, si existe un informe, se espera que esté disponible para el público”, dijo. “Y aún no he visto ninguno”.

El portavoz del alcalde se negó a compartir esos informes con KPBS. KPBS tardó tres meses en obtener copias mediante una solicitud de acceso a registros públicos.

Los registros no son informes estandarizados, sino una mezcla de mensajes de texto y correos electrónicos que el Departamento de Policía de San Diego (SDPD por sus siglas en inglés) envía al personal del alcalde.

Una ordenanza municipal, presentada inicialmente por el concejal Sean Elo Rivera, amplía lo establecido por la orden ejecutiva del alcalde. Dicha ordenanza formaliza el proceso de presentación de informes y exige que el departamento de policía los presente al Consejo de la Ciudad en un plazo de tres días tras cualquier interacción relacionada con el ICE.

“Esto proporciona un nivel de transparencia que antes no existía”, afirmó Tsurumoto-Grassi.

Otro ejemplo de cómo las políticas locales pueden suplir las deficiencias de la ley de santuario se observa en la aplicación de la ley por parte del ICE en lugares sensibles como escuelas, hospitales o iglesias.

Durante el primer mandato de Trump, el gobierno federal siguió en gran medida la política vigente para evitar la aplicación de la ley en esos lugares. Pero ahora, esos lugares son blanco fácil para la aplicación de la ley de inmigración.

La ordenanza municipal, que entra en vigor este mes, exige que los agentes federales muestren una orden judicial cada vez que ingresen a espacios no públicos de edificios municipales o a propiedades privadas de empresas con contratos con la ciudad.

“Esto es importante porque, si pensamos en las personas o los contratistas con los que trabaja la ciudad, se trata de sus refugios, su centro de convenciones, su estadio”, dijo Tsurumoto-Grassi.

La pasajera, Dharmi Mehta, grabó el arresto el 23 de abril al salir de la Terminal de la Calle B. En el video se ve a los agentes de la CBP subiendo a varios miembros de la tripulación de Disney Cruise Line, que aparentemente aún vestían sus uniformes de trabajo, a una camioneta blanca sin distintivos. Inmediatamente reconoció a uno de los tripulantes.

“Uno de los empleados que estaba esposado era el jefe de meseros, quien había estado atendiéndonos a mí y a mi familia durante todo el viaje”, dijo. “Llegamos a conocerlo bastante bien — de hecho, nos estaba sirviendo entre 45 minutos y una hora antes de que lo detuvieran.”

Casi dos semanas después del arresto, activistas locales por los derechos de los inmigrantes están exigiendo respuestas. Durante una conferencia de prensa el martes en la terminal de cruceros, los activistas se unieron a Mehta para pedirle a CBP que dé a conocer más información.

Varias preguntas sobre el arresto siguen sin respuesta, incluyendo los nombres de las personas detenidas, la razón de su arresto, su paradero actual y si CBP presentó una orden judicial.

“Las grandes dudas y preocupaciones que teníamos eran qué va a pasar con ellos, a dónde los van a llevar, cómo regresarán a casa, si aún conservan su empleo y si saben qué recursos tienen disponibles”, dijo Mehta.

Mehta proporcionó el nombre de uno de los tripulantes, el cual KPBS buscó en el localizador de detenidos del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de Estados Unidos. No apareció en el sistema.

KPBS solicitó comentarios a CBP y a Disney, pero no respondieron de inmediato.

El Puerto de San Diego le dijo a KPBS que no tenía conocimiento del operativo federal.

“El Departamento de Policía Portuaria no tuvo ninguna participación en las acciones de cumplimiento reportadas el 23 o el 25 de abril en la terminal de cruceros de B Street”, dijo la agencia en un comunicado. “No recibimos llamadas de servicio relacionadas con estos incidentes. De acuerdo con la ley de California, incluyendo la SB 54, la Policía Portuaria no participa en actividades de control migratorio.”

Benjamin Prado, organizador de Unión del Barrio, dijo que el arresto del 23 de abril no fue un hecho aislado. Agentes de CBP realizaron un arresto similar dos días después, esta vez deteniendo a cuatro miembros de la tripulación de un barco de Holland America Line.

“Esto ahora forma parte de un patrón más amplio de redadas y detenciones migratorias en centros de trabajo”, dijo.

Activistas señalaron que los tripulantes detenidos del barco de Holland America son de Filipinas y temen que ya hayan sido deportados.

El Consulado de Filipinas en San Diego no respondió de inmediato a las preguntas.

Según el sitio web de Disney, los requisitos para trabajar a bordo varían según el puesto. Incluyen experiencia mínima para ciertos cargos, además de “la capacidad de obtener un pasaporte, pasar una verificación de antecedentes y un examen médico, y obtener las visas correspondientes.”

For nearly a year, the city of San Diego has been preparing for how it would respond to a large-scale federal immigration enforcement operation in the region.

Those efforts — first introduced in an executive order Mayor Todd Gloria signed last July — include convening a roundtable with executives and police chiefs of neighboring cities to coordinate a regional response and creating a “comprehensive response team” tasked with developing a joint safety plan.

The executive order also states city officials will host meetings, “with community leaders, civil rights organizations and relevant city departments to evaluate city protocols, monitor community impact, and recommend future action.”

But nearly a year since Gloria signed the executive order, immigration rights advocates are frustrated by the lack of transparency and collaboration coming from the mayor’s office. The tension comes as advocates look more to state and local governments to offer protection from the escalating immigration crackdown tactics of the Trump administration.

“We’ve been waiting for some concrete plans from our local government, specifically from the city in light of that executive order,” said Ian Seruelo, chair of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium. “We are very concerned that there’s no plans that are being discussed in the open or in the public, or at least shared with different groups so that we can provide some input.”

The consortium is made up of approximately 50 organizations. Members include groups that provide free legal aid, raise money for immigration bail bonds, accompany people to immigration court hearings and visit detainees at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

Seruelo said their experience could help city officials plan for the possibility of a large-scale U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation in San Diego. But none of them have met with the mayor’s office.

KPBS spent three months asking city officials for information about its plans and filed multiple public records requests for agendas, minutes, memos and other documents related to the executive order.

KPBS also asked Gloria’s office for a list of who his staff has met with to “evaluate city protocols, monitor community impact, and recommend future action.” His spokesperson declined to share a list, naming only one organization — Jewish Family Service of San Diego. The organization declined an interview request but shared a prepared statement attributable to CEO Dana Toppel.

“JFS has served as a community partner and expert resource for the San Diego Mayor’s Office along with other government and nongovernment entities to provide guidance and recommendations regarding current and potential future federal interior U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity,” Toppel said.

The mayor’s spokesperson declined to make Gloria available for an interview. Public records released by the city did not include any minutes, memos, or copies of a response plan. Records included an invitation to the regional roundtable the mayor hosted last year.

When asked directly whether the city had a response plan for a Minneapolis-style ICE operation in San Diego, a spokesperson said their plan is, “intentionally operational and adaptive. It is not a single static document, but a set of coordinated protocols, roles and response actions used by departments to manage real-time situations.”

The spokesperson did not answer follow up questions asking them to share any specific details about the protocols, roles or response actions.

Pedro Rios, a director at the American Friends Service Committee, praised the city’s decision to have an adaptive plan — saying it gives the city flexibility to respond to shifting ICE enforcement tactics.

However, Rios said the lack of transparency about specifics regarding that plan, makes it impossible for organizations currently working with San Diego’s immigrant population to evaluate it.

“There’s a perception that the Mayor’s Office hasn’t done enough and isn’t as interested in these issues, even though his office might say that they are working on it,” he said. “It hasn’t been clearly communicated to the wider public.”

This tension highlights an important shift between the first and second Trump administration.

During the first term, immigration service providers mainly focused on providing legal and social services for immigrants going through immigration proceedings, not necessarily shielding them from enforcement.

But now, they see the administration’s heavy-handed approach as having forced people into a defensive posture and service providers worry local elected officials are not doing enough to support.

Multiple layers of protection

Following Trump’s 2016 election, state lawmakers passed the California Values Act — one of three so-called sanctuary laws that aimed to limit cooperation between local police and federal immigration agents.

Erin Tsurumoto-Grassi, the associate director of Alliance San Diego, called the California Values Act, “groundbreaking” noting that several states are attempting to pass similar legislation now.

But she noted that the law from 2017 has some limits. Parts of it have become outdated because ICE has changed its enforcement tactics.

Now, Tsurumoto-Grassi views the state law as a starting point that local counties and cities can build on.

“It sets a floor, not a ceiling,” she said. “And then local jurisdictions can go farther, which is what we’ve seen happen with a number of counties across the state.”

For example, the 2017 state law did not account for ICE agents wearing face masks and conducting enforcement operations in sensitive locations like schools, hospitals and churches.

The law doesn’t provide local police departments with guidance on how to respond to ICE-related 911 calls — whether they come from ICE agents asking for backup or members of the community asking for help.

Gloria’s executive order created some guidelines by requiring the police department to report any instances where San Diego Police Department officers respond to an incident involving federal immigration enforcement.

While that’s a significant new step, advocates criticized the executive order for not making those reports easily accessible to the public.

“My understanding was that after each incident there would be a report and if there’s a report, then the expectation is that report should be available to the public,” he said. “And I have not seen one yet.”

The mayor’s spokesperson declined to share those reports with KPBS. It took three months for KPBS to obtain copies through a public records request.

The records are not standardized reports, but a mix of text messages and emails SDPD sends to the mayor’s staff.

A city ordinance first introduced by Councilmember Sean Elo Rivera expands on what the mayor’s executive order created. The ordinance formalizes the reporting process and requires the police department to submit reports to the City Council within three days of an ICE-related interaction.

“So that provides a level of transparency that didn’t exist before,” Tsurumoto-Grassi said.

Another example of how local policies can fill gaps in the sanctuary law is with ICE enforcement in sensitive locations like schools, hospitals or churches.

During the first Trump term, the federal government largely followed existing policy to avoid enforcement in those locations. But now, those places are fair game for immigration enforcement.

The city ordinance, which goes into effect this month, requires federal agents to show a warrant whenever they enter nonpublic spaces of municipal buildings — or private property of businesses with city contracts.

“That’s important because, if you think about the people or the contractors the city is working with, that’s your shelters, that’s your convention center, that’s your ballpark,” Tsurumoto-Grassi said.

After disembarking from a 4-day Disney Cruise, one of the passengers noticed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents arrest several crew members.

The passenger, Dharmi Mehta captured the April 23 arrest on video as she left the B Street Terminal. It shows CBP agents loading several Disney Cruise Line crew members, who appear to be still in their work uniforms, into an unmarked white van. She immediately recognized one of the crew members.

“One of the employees in restraints was a head server who had been serving me and my family for the duration of my trip,” she said. “We got to know him fairly well — he was actually serving us 45 minutes to an hour before he was in restraints.”

Nearly two weeks after the arrest, local immigrant rights activists are demanding answers. During a news conference at the ship terminal Tuesday, activists joined Mehta to call on CBP to release more information.

Several questions from the arrest have gone unanswered — including the names of the individuals detained, the reason for their arrest, their current whereabouts and whether CBP produced a warrant.

“The big questions and concerns we had were what will happen to them, where will they go, how do they go home, do they still have a job and do they know what resources are available to them,” Mehta said.

Mehta provided the name of one of the crew members, which KPBS ran through the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement locator website. He did not appear in the system.

KPBS reached out to CBP and Disney for comment. They did not immediately responded.

The Port of San Diego told KPBS they were unaware of the federal operation.

"Harbor Police Department did not have any involvement in the reported enforcement actions on April 23 or April 25 at the B Street Cruise Terminal," the agency said in statement. "We did not receive any calls for service related to these incidents. In accordance with California law, including SB 54, Harbor Police does not participate in immigration enforcement activities."

Benjamin Prado, an organizer with Unión del Barrio, said the April 23 arrest was not an isolated incident. CBP agents conducted a similar arrest two days later, this time detaining four crew members from a ship belonging to the Holland America Line.

“Now this forms part of a larger pattern of affecting raids and immigration detention in work sites,” he said.

Activists said the detained crew members from the Holland America ship are from the Philippines and fear that they may have already been deported.

The Philippine Consulate in San Diego did not immediately respond to questions.

According to Disney’s website, requirements to work onboard vary by position. They include minimum experience requirements for certain positions as long as the person has, “the ability to obtain a passport, pass a background and medical check, and obtain proper visas.”

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Up against a massive court backlog that can drag their cases for years, asylum seekers face steep costs when pursuing their dreams of college in California.

Asylum-seeking students in California often face a double blow: they are charged higher tuition for nonresidents and excluded from most financial aid. For students and their families, this can mean thousands of dollars paid out of pocket and years of financial stress as their immigration cases remain unresolved.

Before establishing residency, asylum-seeking students are charged non-resident rates, which are about three times what state residents pay for public universities and roughly eight to 13 times more for community colleges, depending on the district.

All asylum seekers are disqualified from federal financial aid. The few who qualify for California’s state aid may never know their options, or face hurdles in obtaining it due to a patchwork of financial aid processes.

The state’s higher education systems are not mandated to track asylum seekers, making state budget impacts nearly unquantifiable during legislative attempts to expand financial aid eligibility.

“I only see them struggling,” said Eric Cline, social services program director at OASIS Legal Services, which supports LGBTQ+ asylum seekers across the Bay Area and Central Valley. “I’m always surprised (when) a few clients tell me 'I just graduated from college.’ I think, ‘Wow, how did that happen?’”

Policy changes stoke uncertainty for asylum seekers

Asylum seeking is one of the least-protected immigration statuses in the U.S. Asylum seekers, who’ve fled their home countries fearing persecution and are asking the U.S. for protection, differ from refugees, whose status is granted before they enter the country. Asylum seekers apply upon arriving in the U.S.

Applicants can stay as their cases remain pending for years, though experts say the Trump administration is expediting deportations for numerous asylum seekers and ending cases before they can receive a full hearing.

As of February 2026, a little over 2.3 million immigrants are awaiting asylum hearings nationwide, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal activity. The most recent data shows California alone had about 169,000 pending asylum cases in its immigration courts by the end of 2023 — the second-largest backlog of any state. The average wait for an asylum hearing in California was 1,412 days at that time.

The Trump administration paused asylum cases in November, creating even further delays. The administration has now allowed cases to resume for applicants from all but 40 countries. In the San Francisco immigration court system, which is popular among asylum seekers due to higher acceptance rates, a combination of firings by the Trump administration, retirements and relocations whittled the 21 immigration judges to two, according to reporting in Mission Local. Left behind is a caseload of nearly 119,000 immigration cases, the highest of any immigration court in California.

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” also established new fees for asylum seekers, placing additional pressure on an already low-income population. Applicants must now pay an initial $100 application fee plus $100 per year while their case is pending, $550 for a work permit, and $745 each year to renew the permit. In addition, a new rule proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would effectively end the ability of asylum seekers to obtain work permits at all.

As they await a decision, asylum seekers are excluded from federal aid and some state financial aid programs, including Cal Grants under California law.

For one asylum seeker, Carol, being ineligible for financial aid meant she had to take time off from school to work to make ends meet. CalMatters is not using her full name because she fears speaking publicly may jeopardize her asylum case.

Carol did speak before the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2023 urging lawmakers to pass AB 888, which would have expanded Cal Grant eligibility to certain asylum seekers. The bill ultimately did not pass.

She said she arrived in the United States at 17 and had spent more than six years waiting for her case to move through immigration courts, a period during which she said she was ineligible for financial aid.

“I’ve had to delay my educational journey several times, including going part-time and even taking a semester off from school to work,” Carol told lawmakers.

Without access to aid, she said she experienced homelessness, couch surfing and at one point slept on a mattress topper on a hardwood floor because she could not afford a bed. She worked multiple jobs at a time, skipped meals and attended class without the required course materials.

Her story, she said, was not new. Carol told the committee that four years earlier her brother had testified with a nearly identical experience on behalf of a previous bill that was ultimately vetoed, a cycle she argued could have been prevented.

“Had California taken action then, I wouldn’t have had to face the harrowing experiences that I shared with you today,” she said.

Despite the barriers, Carol graduated from Cal State Long Beach and worked as a caseworker with the International Rescue Committee, helping resettle refugees and asylum seekers. She told lawmakers she hopes to pursue a law degree and become an international human rights attorney.

The narrow path to college aid for asylum-seeking students

Many asylum seekers arrive eager to continue studies they began abroad, but quickly run into what Cline calls “a brick wall."

“All of our clients are low-income … they’re almost never eligible for generalized financial aid,” he said. “When you take away the financial aid aspect, it makes (college) pretty inaccessible.”

For California residents, annual undergraduate tuition is $15,588 at the University of California, $6,838 at the California State University and about $1,380 for 30 units at a community college. Students classified as non-residents — including some asylum seekers before establishing residency — can pay $54,858 at a University of California, about $20,968 at a Cal State before campus-based fees, and roughly $10,140 to $13,560 for 30 units at a community college, depending on the district. These figures do not include campus-based fees, housing or living expenses.

Even when students do manage to establish residency, the cost is still steep. For the many asylum seekers who arrive in the United States as adults, they may not have attended a California school previously, barring them from qualifying for state financial aid.

AB 540, the 2001 law that exempts undocumented students from paying non-resident tuition, only applies if the student attended a California high school or community college for three years.

Those who qualify through AB 540 can fill out the California Dream Act Application for state financial aid, such as Cal Grants, university system-specific grants, state loans, and the state’s middle class scholarship.

The application process can still be confusing for asylum seekers whose status is not fully accounted for in the design of the application. For example, asylum seekers often have Social Security numbers for work authorization, but affirming so while answering the financial aid pre-screening questions leads to undetermined eligibility because the questions don’t take into account the nuances of applying as an asylum seeker.

Asylum seekers often require extra help from financial aid counselors, but even counselors may not know how to help navigate eligibility rules. Students often wind up seeking help from undocumented student resource centers on public campuses, which are designed to help students who lack legal residency and those from mixed-status families find aid and academic support.

Kaveena Singh, the director of immigration legal services at the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, which provides legal services to low-income immigrants, noted that she herself has written letters to financial aid offices to help explain the in-between nature of the few asylum-seeking students she has served.

As an asylum-seeking student in his mid-20s, L. ended up qualifying for state financial aid through AB 540. However, he misunderstood for six years exactly what aid he qualified for. L. wished to withhold his name and the names of the institutions he’s attended for fear of negative impacts on his pending asylum case.

Initially, community college didn’t cost him anything — but when he transferred to a large four-year university, the cost of college soared. He went to his university's financial aid office for help so often that all the staff there knew his name. It was a "big relief” when he was finally able to successfully fill out the California Dream Act Application, and obtain financial aid for his summer and fall quarters.

L.'s asylum case has been pending for nine years. He, his dad, mom and younger brother arrived in the United States in the winter of 2016, claiming asylum under fear of political retribution. His father organized political assemblies in China, and his mother was forced to have an abortion under the one-child policy.

“I just wish I could go home and visit family and friends and catch up for a good few weeks in the summer here and there to reconnect with my past,” L. said. “It's like there's two separate lives, like two entities being artificially cut.”

L. worked throughout high school and college, and worried about affording school.

Most days, the combination of family trauma and the limbo of waiting for his case means L. survives through “constant compartmentalization.”

In the meantime, he tries to carry on — he studies politics, and is interested in international relations and human rights.

"As rough as all that's happened, the silver lining is that one day hopefully I get a passport and a green card," L. said. "To help other people avoid such a hassle will be just as fulfilling for me."

Previous legislative efforts have failed

Legislative bills to extend state financial aid eligibility to asylum-seeking students have been introduced at least twice in recent years but have failed.

One attempt came in 2019, when Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from El Segundo, introduced SB 296, a bill that would have extended Cal Grant eligibility to students with pending asylum applications. The measure passed the Legislature with some bipartisan support, but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that it would "impose costs on the General Fund that must be weighed in the annual budget process."

“That was frustrating, but I understood it,” Allen told CalMatters. “The real issue is that we don’t have good data. Our schools don’t track asylum seekers, so we can’t easily calculate the cost.”

UC data on asylum-seeking students is protected due to privacy policies, according to Stett Holbrook, a UC spokesperson. The Cal State system reports it has less than 500 students with "asylum status," which includes both those who have an asylum granted and asylum seekers, according to Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith. The numbers are self-reported during the admissions process.

In spring 2025, 13,507 students self-identified as “refugee/asylee” across the California Community Colleges — up from 11,537 the prior semester — per the CCC DataMart. The data does not include a category for just asylum seekers. Students can self-identify their immigration status while applying, but asylum seekers are not specifically tracked, according to the college system’s spokesperson Melissa Villarin.

Four years after SB 296 failed, Democrat Sabrina Cervantes — then representing Riverside in the Assembly and now as a state senator — revived the proposal through AB 888, introduced in 2023. Like Allen’s earlier bill, AB 888 sought to make Cal Grants accessible to students with pending asylum applications by creating a direct eligibility pathway outside the AB 540 residency requirements. The bill passed the Assembly unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee last September, effectively ending its chances for the year.

Cervantes declined an interview with CalMatters. “My Assembly Bill 888 would have created a new pathway for pending asylum seekers in California to apply for Cal Grant financial aid in pursuit of their higher education,” Cervantes wrote in a statement.

Newsom’s office declined to say whether he would support a future version of the proposal, pointing instead to his brief 2019 veto message.

“There’s nervousness around anything that involves new expenses," Allen said. “... We’re going to have to spend some time seeing what information we can get with regards to better data to get better estimated costs. I think that will help to better inform the conversation."

Andrea Baltodano and Chrissa Olson are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

A local journalist is suing the city of San Diego for allegedly withholding police records related to two federal immigration enforcement operations that included an SDPD presence.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of Kate Morrissey, a former San Diego Union-Tribune reporter who cofounded the nonprofit newsroom Daylight San Diego, seeks records connected to two ICE operations at the Mesa Vista apartment complex in Linda Vista and the 47th Street trolley station.

Morrissey's lawsuit claims SDPD officers were called to assist with crowds who gathered at both operations, including some who were actively protesting against ICE.

After she requested records of the events, including SDPD body-worn camera footage and 911 call logs, the city declined to release some records by claiming they were exempt from public disclosure because they are records of law enforcement investigations, the lawsuit states.

But because the SDPD was not involved in investigating a crime at either operation, but rather crowd control, Morrissey alleges the information she sought shouldn't fall under that exemption.

"What happened at these raids demands public accountability," Morrissey said in a statement. "Body camera footage are exactly the kinds of records that allow the public and journalists to see what actually happened on the ground, not just what officials choose to tell us. The San Diego Police Department has an obligation to release these records, and we intend to hold them to it."

A San Diego City Attorney's Office spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The first operation on July 2 drew a crowd of protesters to the Mesa Vista complex and led to the arrests by federal agents of three U.S. citizens and an undocumented migrant. Federal prosecutors filed charges against the four people for crimes that included assault on a federal agent, but later dismissed the cases against two of them.

At the second operation on Nov. 18, a crowd gathered to film and protest a federal immigration operation near the 47th Street trolley station. At one point, the SDPD arrested a man for allegedly striking a federal agent, which the lawsuit alleges occurred after federal agents "questioned, detained and used force against community members, including with pepper spray and direct physical force."

The SDPD said in statements released after both operations that its officers are not involved in immigration enforcement.

But due to the Trump administration's crackdown on asylum-seekers at the border, the man had landed in the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

He needed help. And he got it — from a group of law school students at the University of San Diego (USD).

“The fact that I was able to help get him out and get him released on bond is just really, really wonderful,” said Amber Rahim, a third-year law student at USD School of Law and an intern at the school’s Immigration Clinic.

During her two years interning at the clinic, Rahim has, in addition to this case, helped clients become U.S. citizens, apply for a green cards, secure visas and even fight deportations.

She’s part of a growing number of students who view immigration law as a way to fight back against the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. And the clinic helps them get hands-on experience before passing the bar exam.

For Rahim, the work is personal. Her parents are immigrants.

“Growing up, I just watched their journey of coming here,” she said. “I went to my dad’s citizenship ceremony.”

The clinic is run by Tammy Lin, a San Diego-based immigration lawyer with decades of experience.

“I was brought in specifically because students wanted to do asylum cases. They wanted to be in court. They wanted to go to detention,” Lin said.

When Lin was in law school in the early 2000s, immigration law wasn’t a popular specialty. The stereotype was that immigration lawyers were more administrators than litigators, spending most of their time filling out paperwork.

But that’s changed during the second Trump term. Law school students are seeing viral videos of federal immigration agents arresting people based on their appearance or forcing their way into homes without a warrant.

Records from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) show approximately 70% of the people detained at the detention center in Otay Mesa do not have a criminal record.

As a result, more law school students now view immigration law as a way to make a difference in their communities.

“They’re looking at immigration practitioners as really much the front line of protection of constitutional rights,” she said.

And the Trump administration’s enforcement surge over the past year has further exacerbated an ongoing shortage of immigration lawyers.

The number of people held in immigration custody across the country has nearly doubled since Trump took — from about 40,000 people detained during the Biden administration to about 70,000 today.

Federal data also show more than half of people with pending cases in immigration court do not have legal representation. 

“I think the market for them right now is very bright in that there’s just so much need and there’s just not enough attorneys,” Lin said.

Last year, the clinic opened 60 new cases. And interns dedicated thousands of hours to help San Diego’s immigrant families, according to USD.

Difficult work

Lin acknowledges that practicing immigration law can be emotionally draining and heavy caseloads lead to burnout. The USD clinic offers students a chance to find out if immigration law is really for them.

Lin also cites examples of students who decide against full-time immigration work but still plan on to taking pro bono immigration cases on the side.

Logan Quessenberry went into law school thinking he’d be a public defense attorney, but now sees immigration law as his calling.

“I felt this semester, more so than ever, the resolve to continue helping people in the community,” he said. “That’s what we’re here to do. We help people.”

Quessenberry, who grew up in San Diego, says he sees the impact of Trump’s campaign every time he visits the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

“We have such a vibrant community from all over the world that I just had no clue about until I went to the clinic,” he said.

Francesca Nevil, who graduated from USD last year, now works at the clinic as a staff attorney.

It primarily serves low-income San Diegans. But anyone is welcome to call in for a screening. Nevil has worked with a lot of different people who have one thing in common — fear.

“I think our community is really afraid right now,” she said.

Nevil said one of the central challenges to practicing immigration law right now is how quickly it changes. The administration, for example, has threatened to terminate legal humanitarian parole programs like “temporary protected status.”

Then there are court rulings, like the one from a federal judge in Minnesota, who ruled that ICE agents likely engaged in unconstitutional practices, including racial profiling.

Immigration laws rarely offer undocumented immigrants a simple solution to adjusting their status and sometimes, there are no options. Still, Nevil said, it helps to arm people with knowledge.

“I do think that the power of education and sharing resources is really impactful and that gives folk the opportunity to make the decisions that are right for their families,” she said.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 54 into law in 2017. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement, with some exceptions. City leaders say this contradicts federal law.

“This is a constitutional case,” said Richard Lawson, vice chair of litigation for the America First Policy Institute, which is representing the city of El Cajon in the case. “Under the Constitution, federal law is supreme.”

The lawsuit specifically cites a section of federal law that “makes it an offense for any person who encourages or induces” someone to live in the U.S. without legal status. Lawson pointed to California policies that allow people without legal status to access driver’s licenses, disability insurance and in-state tuition.

“If you look at all of that, it is designed to induce and encourage illegal aliens to reside here,” he said.

City leaders say SB 54 can make it harder for police to do their jobs. In March 2025, El Cajon City Councilmember Steve Goble asked the California Department of Justice about conducting wellness checks on unaccompanied children. Federal authorities sometimes share contact information with local police so they can do wellness checks.

“Currently, local law enforcement is wary of performing these wellness checks in collaboration with federal authorities due to concerns whether elements of California Senate Bill 54 apply,” Goble wrote.

The department said local police may violate state law if they share or confirm the location of someone without legal status with federal authorities.

In a statement, Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote, “El Cajon should prepare for another loss.”

“Anyone, regardless of immigration status, who commits a crime can be held accountable under California law. Period,” he wrote. “SB 54 is a pro-public safety law that encourages witnesses and victims of crime to come forward and work with law enforcement. SB 54 has been upheld in court again and again, and we’re prepared to defend it from a baseless attack once more.”

City officials in Huntington Beach filed a similar lawsuit last year. It was dismissed in December.

On Monday, Deputy Mayor Cesar Fernandez held a ceremonial signing of the city’s so-called “Safe Neighbor” ordinance. The new law requires city officials to disclose any contact between federal immigration agents and Chula Vista police.

Under the ordinance, Chula Vista’s City Manager will provide written reports to the City Council on those encounters at least twice a year. The city’s police chief will also have to issue public incident reports every time officers respond to calls from immigration agents.

Council member Carolina Chavez said the measure was a direct response to aggressive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. She pointed to agents’ raid in San Diego’s South Park neighborhood last year, when agents arrested several workers and used flashbang grenades to clear a crowd of protesters.

“This is not hypothetical,” Chavez said. “It leaves a community with trauma that will follow them for the rest of their lives.”

Fernandez said the Council wanted to be more transparent about encounters between officers and federal agents. He said the city would publish their first report on ICE activity by the end of June.

“Therein lies the scary part,” he said. “I don’t have a clear idea of what we’re going to see.”

Spike in Chula Vista ICE arrests 

ICE arrested 52 people in Chula Vista last year following President Donald Trump’s return to office, according to the Deportation Data Project. 60% of those people had no convictions or criminal charges.

That’s up from previous years, the data show. In 2024, ICE arrested just nine people in Chula Vista, 22% of them with no criminal record.

In 2023, ICE arrested 11 people, and all but one had criminal records.

Fernandez and Chavez, both Democrats, began working on the ordinance last fall after armed ICE agents arrested a parent outside an East Chula Vista elementary school.

The Council’s Democratic majority voted to approve the ordinance early last month.

In addition to the reporting requirements, the ordinance also limits city staff and contractors from sharing information about residents’ legal status and bars city officials from taking part in immigration-related task forces.

It clarifies that federal immigration agents cannot access nonpublic city facilities without a judicial warrant or a court order.

At that March meeting, Sweetwater Education Association President Lucy Ugarte thanked the Council for their work on the ordinance.

“Our students are tired of being scared,” Ugarte said. “This ordinance shows them that you are listening, that you care, and that you want to keep them and their families and our communities safe from harm.”

Mayor won’t support ordinance

One notable absence from Monday’s ceremony was Chula Vista Mayor John McCann.

McCann, the Council’s lone Republican, has largely avoided any discussions related to federal immigration enforcement and other actions by the Trump administration, citing his service as a Naval reservist.

During a bid for county supervisor last year, McCann said local officials should be supporting citizens over noncitizens. He opposed the county’s stronger sanctuary laws and Immigrant Legal Defense Program.

McCann abstained from several votes related to the new ordinance.

“He declined to stand up in this moment for the many residents in our city who are living with fear and uncertainty,” Fernandez said on Monday. “That matters, and people deserve to hear that clearly.”

In a text to KPBS Monday, McCann reiterated his argument that he is “unable to participate in an item that would specifically inhibit or oppose federal law” due to his military service.

“Therefore I am required to recuse myself and not sign the political statement that already follows the 2018 SB 54,” the mayor wrote, referring to the California Values Act.

McCann is currently running for reelection in the June primary.

Chavez is also up for reelection this year.

Drop in school attendance 

On Monday, Fernandez was flanked by Chula Vista Elementary School District trustee Francisco Tamayo, a Democrat who is currently running against McCann for mayor.

Tamayo described a concerning trend. He said districts across the South Bay saw attendance fall last year following high-profile immigration-related arrests — including the arrest outside Camarena Elementary School.

“Parents are afraid to bring their kids, especially if their immigration status is uncertain,” he said.

According to the trustee, Camarena Elementary School saw a 5% to 8% drop in attendance in the week after the arrest. Elsewhere in the district, schools saw attendance fall between 3% to 5%.

Tamayo attributes those declines to federal immigration actions because of the timing — and because of the number of phone calls he said the district has received from concerned parents.

He said school districts across the South Bay have observed similar declines.

Last year, researchers at UC Riverside found that forced separation from caregivers, or the threat of it, can have lasting consequences for children in immigrant and mixed-status families.

Tamayo said the Chula Vista Elementary School District has created a special response team who will interface with federal agents and try to determine if they are following the correct protocols.

“All of this is to make sure that families feel safe, that we're doing everything in our power to protect the kids,” he said.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors has approved an agreement with the Mexican Consulate to increase legal defense services for Mexican nationals and improve access to "Know Your Rights" information.

According to the motion's sponsors, board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer and Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, the measure comes "as federal immigration enforcement intensifies, drawing more San Diego families into detention and removal proceedings without legal representation."

Lawson-Remer, Aguirre and Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe voted yes at Tuesday's meeting, while Supervisors Joel Anderson and Jim Desmond were opposed.

The board authorized county officials to negotiate with the Mexican Consulate on legal services for those who face removal from the United States for being here illegally.

"This includes critical post-detention interventions such as bond assistance, habeas corpus petitions and (legal orders) — tools that can prevent prolonged detention and ensure fair legal outcomes," according to Aguirre and Lawson-Remer.

Lawson-Remer said the agreement is "about making sure San Diego County residents are afforded a fair day in court."

Mexican nationals are 24% of those in the county Immigrant Legal Defense Program's existing client database, "making this partnership directly relevant to the program's current caseload," the supervisors added.

Additionally, the county will partner with the consulate to distribute multilingual and culturally related Know Your Rights material at health clinics, libraries and social service offices.

"These resources will help families understand their rights, prepare for potential enforcement actions and plan for the care of their children in emergencies," according to Aguirre and Lawson-Remer.

They added that the agreement "leverages the consulate's trusted role in the community to deliver timely information, and builds on longstanding collaboration to better serve communities and close gaps in access to services."

The Mexican Consulate provides services such as documents, emergency assistance and legal orientation.

"By partnering with the Mexican Consulate, we're meeting people where they are with trusted information, real legal help and a pathway to stability during moments of crisis," Aguirre said.

In a statement Wednesday, Desmond said he voted no because the county "should not be funding the Immigrant Legal Defense Program."

"The last (presidential) administration let millions of people pour across our border unvetted, and now local taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill to defend those same individuals from deportation," Desmond said. "That's not our role. Our job is to invest in infrastructure and the core functions that serve San Diego residents — not to pick up the tab for the federal government's failures."

Last September, supervisors voted 4-1 to expand the ILDP to include unaccompanied immigrant children.

Supervisors first approved the program in 2021 to provide legal representation for immigrants facing deportation proceedings.

The California State Water Resources Control Board now has rules for distributing nearly $50 million in state bonds for water quality projects that could help fix pollution in the Tijuana and New Rivers.

Leaders in San Diego and Imperial counties had been making their case for why their regions should receive the full amount of funding that Proposition 4 earmarked to clean up rivers and coastal waters near the California-Mexico border.

Proposition 4, which California voters approved in November 2024, however, did not specify who would get the funding and how much.

On Tuesday, board members unanimously approved a process to decide.

“$50 million can go very quickly, especially between the two border communities that the dollars can go and there's just an incredible amount of need,” said Joaquin Esquivel, the board’s chairperson. “But glad to be able to have these resources. Glad that, you know, the guidelines have been developed.”

According to the guidelines, the water board is to solicit applications between June and August and begin ranking them in the fall. Projects that propose improving water quality and benefiting public health will earn the most points. Those proposing infrastructure fixes and habitat restoration will also be considered.

There are several ways projects can receive extra points, including benefiting a disadvantaged community, having additional sources of funding, having coordinated with a Mexican government agency or being ready to be implemented.

Projects could receive anywhere from $250,000 to $10 million each, though there may be opportunities for a project to be awarded $20 million, a change board members agreed to after debating how high to cap funds.

Two projects likely to compete for top funding: a $25 million project to fix a sewage hot spot in the Tijuana River, where untreated wastewater flows through culverts and airborne pollutants are released. The county has already set aside about $3 million to design it. The other project is for upgrading or expanding a wastewater treatment plant in Calexico. It processes and cleans sewage before discharging it into the New River, which is heavily polluted by agricultural runoff, industrial waste and municipal discharge from Mexicali. Officials said costs range from $10 million to $50 million.

Jonathan Clay, a San Diego County lobbyist, asked board members to consider increasing the $10 million maximum, which would help the county complete its hot spot project.

“It’s a huge issue; we need to move forward,” he told the board. “So, with that in mind, we would just sort of respectfully ask that the board maybe consider looking at that max cap for individual projects.”

Board members debated whether raising the funding cap before looking at all project applicants was fair, given that there is already a high interest in applying for funding.

“Right now, we know of at least 20 projects that could come in for the solicitation,” said Jennifer Toney, who is on staff with the water agency. “There is a great need.”

Board member Sean Maguire said that while he understood the public health concerns around the Tijuana and New rivers, I’m just not familiar with what else is out there.”

They ultimately agreed to give themselves the option to boost funding for a project if they deemed it necessary.

The state agency said funding is expected to be allocated early next year.

Earlier this year, Assemblymember David Alvarez (D-San Diego) introduced a bill that proposes to expedite the $10 billion Proposition 4 funds for environmental projects and programs, which include funding to address cross-border river pollution. The Senate is reviewing the proposal.

A federal appeals court issued an order Wednesday blocking a California law requiring federal immigration agents to wear identification, another blow to the state's attempts to limit the Trump administration's aggressive enforcement tactics.

The Trump administration argued that it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that it violated the constitution because the state was directly seeking to regulate the federal government.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal. It had earlier blocked the law from taking effect.

The decision could have implications nationwide for other states that have pursued their own measures to place restrictions on immigration agents.

The measure was one of two major pieces of legislation enacted last fall aimed at reining in federal immigration agents after a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Southern California in June. The other law would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. Advocates have raised concerns about masked agents conducting workplace raids or arresting people on the street, often without showing identification.

The Trump administration sued over both in November.

A federal judge blocked the mask ban in February, ruling that it discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers. The law made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation. That judge let the ID law stand.

At an appeal hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California identification requirement law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen.

California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply “generally applicable” laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.

People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there's no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief.

“This confusion has resulted in federal law enforcement officials being mistaken for criminals and vice versa, creating serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public,” they wrote.

In October 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a report warning that the increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had spurred “criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime,” California attorneys noted.

The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrated its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution."

When a lower court struck down California’s mask ban, it left open another way of achieving the same goal. The judges in that case had indicated they would be more open to a law that banned masks for all law enforcement officers, not just federal ones. A new California bill attempts to revive the mask restrictions by also applying them to state troopers.

But the appeals court’s opinion signals a stricter view on the state government’s ability to regulate federal officers.

“The Supremacy Clause prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner,” the judges wrote.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “huge legal victory” in a post on X.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said they are reviewing the order.

“The Trump Administration has stepped well outside the boundaries of normal practice, deploying masked and unidentified agents to carry out immigration enforcement, despite the risks these tactics pose to public safety and basic civil liberties," Bonta's office said in a statement.

Vargas, who represents the 52nd District in San Diego’s South Bay, joined the crowd in chants of, “ICE Out! ICE Out!” But then he grew noticeably silent when the chants shifted to, “Stop Funding Israel! Stop Funding Israel!”

That’s when the crowd turned on Vargas. Booing the seven-term congressman and shouting, “Get off the stage!”

As Vargas was leaving, a small group of activists and organizers asked him about his relationship with the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He gave them a clear and definitive answer.

“AIPAC has never given me a penny,” Vargas said.

However, campaign finance records from the Federal Elections Commission show AIPAC has been Vargas’ biggest donor in the last two election cycles.

During the 2024 cycle, AIPAC contributed $162,052 to Vargas’ campaign, the records show. That accounted for 16% of Vargas’ overall contributions and was by far the highest amount by a single funder. The second was the New Democrat Coalition Action Fund with $19,500 in contributions.

Similarly, AIPAC has been Vargas’ top donor during the current campaign cycle — contributing $63,500 as of April 14, records show. Again, more than any other donor.

Vargas is running in the June primary against Republican Jeff Belle and Democrat Deborah Calhoun Rhodes.

He did not respond to multiple questions from KPBS regarding the AIPAC donations.

To the activists who confronted the congressman at the rally in February, his denial was upsetting and confusing.

“He’s a liar,” said Grace Victoria Rojas Jimenez, one of the activists who started the “Stop Funding Israel” chant.

This criticism comes amid shifting views on Israel throughout the United States.

Since 2001, Gallup has asked Americans whether their sympathies lie more with Israel or Palestinians in, “the Middle East situation.” The answer has overwhelmingly been in favor of Israel, with Americans showing consistent double-digit leads in support for decades — with the gap averaging 43 points between 2001 and 2018.

But support for Israel has eroded significantly over the last few years — with Americans now saying their sympathies lie more with Palestinians than Israel by a narrow margin.

However, the gap widens among Democrats — with 65% of Democrats saying their sympathies lie with Palestinians compared with 17% who favor Israelis.

Rojas Jimenez, who lives in Vargas’ district, believes her congressman is out of touch with his constituents on this issue. She does not believe U.S. tax dollars should be going to fuel Israel’s attack on Gaza or the unpopular war in Iran.

“What our tax dollars are being funded is for war and genocide, but these are not our needs and we didn’t ask for them,” she said.

Several organizations that investigated the Israeli military’s tactics in its response to the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack — including a United Nations Special Committee, Amnesty International, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars — have concluded that Israel committed acts of genocide in Palestine.

Israel has denied those findings.

Activists specifically point to a controversial March 5 House of Representatives vote in which Vargas voted with Republicans to reject a war powers resolution that could have limited President Donald Trump’s military action in Iran.

Vargas was one of only four Democrats to vote against the resolution.

In a previous statement, Vargas’ office told KPBS he supported some of Trump’s goals in Iran – specifically preventing the regime from developing nuclear weapons and diminishing their missile and drone program.

More recently, on April 16, Vargas voted with Democrats in favor of a similar war powers resolution. The resolution failed by one vote.

More than 430 pounds of cocaine and methamphetamine worth and estimated $2.8 million were seized at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials reported last week.

CBP said the drugs were intercepted in two separate enforcement actions last week.

The first seizure was on April 7, when officers referred a 51-year-old Mexican national driving a Toyota Prius for a secondary inspection. During the inspection, a CBP canine team alerted to the vehicle, and agents allegedly found 124 pounds of cocaine worth an estimated $2.4 million in 44 packages concealed in the doors, back seat and rear quarter panels of the car.

On April 8, officers referred a 21-year-old man, who is a U.S. citizen, driving a Nissan Frontier for a secondary inspection. He was a participant in the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection program, according to CBP.

"An imaging system scan and a CBP canine team alerted officers to a non-factory compartment in the truck bed," the CBP said.

Officers allegedly found 25 packages containing about 307 pounds of methamphetamine with an estimated street value of $491,200.

"These back-to-back seizures stopped dangerous criminals in their tracks and prevented deadly narcotics from ever reaching our communities," Otay Mesa Port Director Rosa Hernandez said in a statement. "By combining their professional expertise with advanced technology, our officers demonstrate their commitment to securing our borders and keeping our country safe."

Both men were arrested on suspicion of federal charges and both of their vehicles were seized.

Daniela Valladares Hernandez still remembers what she carried on her more than 1,000-mile journey from Honduras to the U.S.-Mexico border.

A small purple book bag, orange shorts and her Barbie dolls.

Valladares said the outfit was inspired by Dora the Explorer, her childhood obsession.

“They drew me a map the same way Dora had,” Daniela said, recalling the strangers she traveled with. “I knew that as I embarked on the journey by foot that the final destination and the star where I was going to be safe was the U.S.”

The then six-year-old held onto her Swan Lake Princess and Rapunzel dolls the entire trip, even after nearly drowning crossing the Rio Grande.

“My innocence and childhood, I left them at the border the moment those Barbies were dropped and I was handcuffed and put behind bars,” she said.

That was in 2004. The now 28-year-old DACA recipient has since built a life in the United States after first settling in Georgia, where she pushed herself academically to eventually attend George Washington University and graduate from Cornell University.

Valladares has lived in California for the last four years and currently lives in Sacramento, where she’s pursuing a career in finance. But a letter that arrived late last month upended her life.

The Atlanta immigration court in Georgia reopened her case and ordered her to appear in person within days of receiving the notice despite her case being administratively closed in 2014. Valladares said she was not provided a reason for her case being reopened.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review said it does not comment on cases before the agency when asked questions for this story.

Valladares filed motions to move her case to California or appear remotely, but both were denied.

That’s despite the fact that her attorney’s request to appear remotely was granted.

“She will not be able to walk in with me, but I am still expected to walk in alone,” she said. “It is quite odd and interesting that they are trying to now drag me back into a place that did not allow me to build my life.”

Valladares is referring to constant road blocks she encountered while living in Georgia, including a high school counselor who threatened to report her to immigrations customs enforcement.

DACA recipients targeted 

Greg Chen with the American Immigration Lawyers Association said the organization has seen a dramatic increase of DACA recipients placed into deportation proceedings, with 300 taking place in recent months.

“It’s likely that there are more DACA recipients that are now appearing in immigration court removal proceedings just in the past several months,” Chen said.

Chen noted that the shift is part of a broader pattern of immigration courts changing how they operate. He pointed to a recent memorandum from the Executive Office for Immigration Review that removed previous guidance on change of venue requests as a likely reason for Valladares’ denial.

The memo argues such requests can be abused by people trying to delay proceedings or seek courts with higher approval ratings. But Chen said the policy change, combined with increased pressure on judges to move cases quickly and rule in favor of the government, may be influencing decisions.

“That kind of pressure impacts whether judges would be inclined to grant a change of venue … or other motions that might be perceived as slowing down the immediate proceedings,” he said. “Putting pressure on a judge to move forward on every case doesn’t necessarily make the courts more efficient and is also likely to result in highly inconsistent results that are not consistent with the law.”

Chen said it’s also important to note that immigration courts operate under the U.S. Department of Justice, not as independent courts, and that recent firings of immigration judges with higher approval ratings could be influencing judges’ choices.

The cost of a denial

When she received the letter that changed her life, Valladares reached out to NorCal Resist, a mutual aid nonprofit that assists immigrants going through deportation proceedings, for support on her case.

Giselle Garcia, the nonprofit’s program director, said the case stood out because change-of-venue requests like this are often granted.

“Daniela has been living in California for many years and it is impractical and almost impossible for her to uproot her life,” she said. “She’s being demanded to uproot her life essentially and navigate these proceedings across the country in a state where she has a history of rejection.”

Her case has also drawn support from Congresswoman Doris Matsui, who represents Sacramento. She sent a letter to the Department of Justice urging officials to reconsider the decision to allow Valladares to move her case to California.

“Daniela lost her most recent employment due to the Department of Justice’s decision to reopen her case,” Matsui stated. “By requiring unnecessary travel to Georgia, the Departmnet of Justice is creating further extreme financial hardship for my constituent.”

Data from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse shows that Georgia immigration courts have some of the highest asylum denial rates in the country with individual judge denial rates ranging from 57% to 98%.

Garcia also said if Valladares fails to appear in court, she could receive an automatic deportation order. That’s a problem for Valladares because she’s unwilling to fly due to concerns about immigration enforcement at airports, including in Atlanta.

Community members with NorCal Resist have already volunteered to drive her across the country for her hearing next month, but even that journey carries risk.

“We are going to be driving through conservative states… locations that have historically had border patrol stops,” Garcia said. “So the journey is not a given, but it is the safest route for now.”

Valladares said she came to the United States seeking safety because she faced persecution in her home country and now fears what could happen next. But she’s also determined to put up a fight not just for herself, but for the many other “Dreamers” who are also afraid.

“I’m scared that this fight ends with me losing the ability to have one more breath, but until the end, I will give it all my fight,” she said. “I want people to know who we are, the truth of who we are, and I hope that I can serve as encouragement to others that we’re strong and we have genuinely done things to the best of our abilities the right way.”

La administración de Donald Trump ha convertido a San Diego en un centro de deportaciones al utilizar aeropuertos militares y civiles para vuelos, según datos de una organización sin fines de lucro que rastrea vuelos en todo el país.

Human Rights First documentó casi 120 vuelos de deportación que salieron del Aeropuerto Internacional de San Diego y de la Estación Aérea del Cuerpo de Marines Miramar el año pasado. Esto representa un aumento masivo en comparación con 2024, cuando no hubo ni un solo vuelo de deportación desde San Diego.

“Simplemente ha habido un aumento dramático en la escala respecto al año pasado”, dijo Savi Avery, quien lidera el programa de investigación sobre derechos de refugiados e inmigrantes de la organización y dirige el programa ICE Flight Monitor (del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de EE.UU., ICE por sus siglas en inglés).

Y no es solo Human Rights First quien ha notado el incremento en los vuelos. El residente del área de Miramar, David Kennedy, durante años disfrutó escuchar y ver aviones militares como los F/A-18 Super Hornet volar sobre su casa.

Pero hace aproximadamente un año comenzó a escuchar el sonido de un motor distinto.

“Entonces empecé a asomarme por la ventana y vi estos vuelos comerciales”, dijo Kennedy.

Históricamente, San Diego no había sido un centro de vuelos de deportación.

Las deportaciones aquí solían implicar que agentes federales acompañaran a ciudadanos mexicanos hasta el lado sur de la frontera. Las personas deportadas de otros países generalmente eran trasladadas en avión a otras ciudades de Estados Unidos y deportadas desde ahí.

ICE subcontrata la mayoría de estos vuelos a aerolíneas privadas. En San Diego, la mayoría son operados por GlobalX y Eastern Air Express.

ICE comenzó a utilizar el Aeropuerto Internacional de San Diego para vuelos de deportación en abril de 2025, según datos de Human Rights First. Los vuelos desde Miramar iniciaron en julio.

Avery señaló que esto es un ejemplo de cómo la administración Trump está utilizando la infraestructura militar del país para impulsar su campaña de deportaciones masivas.

Human Rights First también documentó vuelos desde otras tres bases militares ,dos en Texas y una en Georgia, a partir del otoño pasado.

ICE no respondió de inmediato a solicitudes de comentarios ni a preguntas sobre si planea usar más instalaciones militares para estos vuelos.

En un comunicado, la base aérea de Miramar confirmó que su aeropuerto funciona como punto de operación para vuelos civiles, militares y federales, pero no ofreció más detalles sobre los vuelos de ICE.

No es inusual que otras agencias gubernamentales y contratistas utilicen esta base. El avión presidencial de Estados Unidos, Air Force One, ha aterrizado en Miramar en varias ocasiones.

Human Rights First comenzó a rastrear los vuelos de ICE en julio de 2025. Antes, ese trabajo lo realizaba Tom Cartwright, un ejecutivo retirado de JP Morgan en Ohio.

Avery explicó que estos datos de seguimiento son útiles para abogados y familiares de personas detenidas por ICE.

“Definitivamente recibimos mensajes de abogados que pueden estar preocupados de que la administración haya trasladado a alguien en violación de una orden judicial y necesitan detener un vuelo antes de que despegue”, dijo.

En ocasiones, la organización también recibe mensajes de familiares que no saben si su ser querido ya fue deportado y están tratando de localizarlo.

“Nos dicen que eso les da mucha tranquilidad”, añadió Avery.

The Trump administration has turned San Diego into a deportation hub by using military and civilian airports for flights, according to data from a nonprofit tracking flights throughout the country.

Human Rights First documented nearly 120 deportation flights out of San Diego International Airport and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar last year. That’s a massive increase from 2024, when there was not a single deportation flight out of San Diego.

“The scale has just dramatically picked up from the past year,” said Savi Avery, who leads the nonprofit’s refugee and immigrant rights research program and runs the (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) ICE Flight Monitor program.

And it’s not just Human Rights First that’s noticed the increase in flights. Miramar area resident David Kennedy has for years enjoyed hearing and watching F/A-18 Super Hornets and other military planes fly over his home.

But then about a year ago he started hearing the sounds of a different engine.

“So I started to look out my window and saw these commercial flights,” Kennedy said.

Historically, San Diego has not been a deportation flight hub.

Deportations here typically involved federal agents walking Mexican nationals to the south side of the border. Deportees from other countries have historically been flown to other U.S. cities and deported from there.

ICE outsources most of the flights to private carriers. In San Diego, most are handled by Global X and Eastern Air Express.

ICE began using San Diego International Airport for deportation flights in April 2025, according to the data from Human Rights First. Deportation flights out of MCAS Miramar began in July.

Avery said this is an example of the Trump administration using the country’s military infrastructure to advance his mass deportation campaign.

Human Rights First documented flights out of three other military bases, two in Texas and one in Georgia, starting last fall.

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment or questions about whether the agency planned to use more military facilities for deportation flights.

In a statement, MCAS Miramar confirmed that its airport acts as a location for civilian, military and federal flights, but did not provide any other specifics regarding the ICE flights.

It’s not unusual for other government agencies and contractors to use the air station. Air Force One, the U.S. presidential plane, has landed at Miramar several times.

Human Rights First began tracking ICE flights in July 2025. Previously, the work was done by Tom Cartwright, a retired JP Morgan executive from Ohio.

Avery said their tracking data is useful to lawyers and relatives of people detained by ICE.

“We definitely get outreach from lawyers who might be concerned that the administration has flown someone in violation of a court order and need to stop a flight from taking off,” she said.

Sometimes, the organization hears from family members who don’t know if their loved one has already been deported and is trying to track them down.

“We hear that gives them a lot of comfort,” Avery added.

But as the U.S. turns 250, during one of the most polarized eras in our history, many cultural historians say the idea that we welcome the world with open arms is far more mythical than factual.

Although the use of the term melting pot to describe the influx of people from different cultures migrating to the U.S. dates back to the 1800s, it became part of our lexicon largely thanks to a Broadway play in 1908.

“Melting Pot: The Great American Drama” is the saga of David Quizano, a Russian man whose entire family was murdered in an anti-Jewish pogrom. He comes to the U.S., falls in love with a Russian Christian immigrant only to find out that her father was the Russian officer responsible for his family’s death.

The play tells the story of how Americans become Americans, according to José-Antonio Orosco, the author of a book, “Toppling the Melting Pot.”

“It’s a story of transition from the Old World to the New World and giving up the Old World to become Americans,” Orosco said.

At the time, people understood the melting pot metaphor to be more about foreigners assimilating to American culture rather than Americans welcoming foreigners as they are, Orosco added.

And it remained that way through the early part of the 20th Century, as the U.S. struggled to figure out how to cope with the mass migration from eastern and southern Europe — when Italians, Germans and Russians came in large numbers.

“There was concern that somehow this particular group of immigrants from these regions would somehow change not just the demographics, but the culture and politics of the United States,” Orosco said.

Succeeding waves of new immigrants found themselves having to choose between holding on to their old culture or joining the new one.

For example, in the 1920s, Norwegians in Minnesota talked about how sad it was that their children could no longer speak their language or know their culture.

Cultural experts note that instead of metaphorically using fresh ingredients to cook up a spicy, multilayered stew … our melting pot has historically made foreign food taste a little bland.

That’s something Jennifer LeMesurier, a writing and rhetoric professor at Colgate University, found in a modern cookbook. It was marketed at Europeans trying to make non-European dishes.

“It said, for this curry — if you want — you can add either one teaspoon of curry powder or mushroom and onion. But not both,” she said. “And that was all the seasoning for the entire stew — which sounds horrible.”

LeMesurier’s research focuses on how people talk about food in relation to race in the U.S. And she’s found that it provides a window into how we’ve always struggled to figure out who is and is not allowed to be American.

Oftentimes, food is used to discriminate against new groups.

“We love spaghetti now, but when the Italians got here people were like, ‘you’re eating worms on a plate,’” she said.

LeMesurier also points to the late 1800s when anti-Chinese rhetoric was rampant in California, with newspapers perpetuating racist tropes of people eating cats and dogs.

“That rumor is very, very old,” she said. "But it’s also familiar."

“We see this with President Trump’s accusations against the Haitian Community in Springfield (Ohio) saying, ‘They’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs,’” LeMesurier said.

So, in some respects, we’re having the exact same conversations we had in the 1800s — which is relatively normal.

“History is never linear, progress is never linear,” she said.

That’s one reason why Orosco doesn’t want to give up on the melting pot idea. Just because we haven’t figured out how to get it right in the last 250 years, doesn’t mean we won’t in the next 250 years.

“The way it’s been defined is that if you want to come here you have to fit into the old,” he said. “And that promise of a new exciting future of diversity and inclusion and new experience is something that’s been lost in the discussion of the melting pot.”

Medina Husen has been coming to this food distribution for a decade. She loves the kale especially, and cooks it up with tomato and onion and Maggi Seasoning.

It helps feed her family of five, especially after she cut back on work hours to go to nursing school.

This month, the Trump administration ended federal nutrition assistance eligibility for many immigrant groups, including asylees, refugees, trafficking survivors, abuse victims and Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion. The program is known as CalFresh in California.

The change was passed last summer as part of Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill,” and took effect April 1.

The cuts apply to nearly 13,000 San Diego County residents, according to the City Heights Community Development Corporation (CDC), who runs the distribution.

Husen still has her CalFresh benefits, but she hears from others who are losing them.

“I do hear, you know, people getting terrorized by, you know, whether or not they will be able to, you know, feed the family the whole month,” she said.

City Heights CDC staff said about one-third of the area’s residents are foreign-born. They’re working to expand their food programs following the federal cuts.

“It's already a vulnerable population, right? Folks are coming into this country. Some of them, you know, they might not speak English, it might be just their second language,” said Javier Gomez, the organization’s chief advising officer.

He said food distributions like this one become even more important as fear of immigration enforcement grows and families are avoiding restaurants and grocery stores.

The cuts have ripple effects, he said. They force choices between groceries and gas, medical and light bills.

And when the federal government cuts the benefits, “it’s not just cutting it for the adult or it’s not just cutting it for the elder, right? It’s cutting it for the children in the household. It’s cutting it for the whole family,” he said.

The City Heights CDC has been getting more calls for food assistance, Gomez said.

“We're seeing a spike of need, but we know that's just the tip of it and it's just starting,” he said.

CalFresh recipients affected by the cuts will not be able to renew their benefits when they expire, meaning the need will grow over time.

As the federal government slashes the safety net beneath them, Husen has hope in the strength of her City Heights community. She believes neighbors will help each other.

The question of who is born an American is on the national stage.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in the case about whether President Donald Trump can limit birthright citizenship via executive order, restricting that status to children born in the country to U.S. citizens or legal residents.

This would mark a historic change to the 14th Amendment which has long been interpreted as granting citizenship to any person born in the United States.

The debate about who should, or should not, be a citizen of the United States has deep roots, and California is a prime case study.

Jane Hong is an Associate Professor of History at Occidental College and is a historian of U.S. immigration. She spoke with Insight Host Vicki Gonzalez about how immigration policy has been shaped in the Golden State.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

When looking at the history of U.S. immigration laws, which go back more than a century, what is unique about California?

There's so much that's unique about California. I’m from New Jersey, and there’s this idea of “California exceptionalism” that I think a lot of folks bristle at in other parts of the country. But when it comes to immigration history, California really is a special place.

California, from its very beginnings as a territory and as a state, had a much more multiracial population than most other states in the country, particularly states in the Northeast. You had indigenous populations, large Latinx populations, Asian Americans, as well as Black Americans and White Americans… even before the Gold Rush days. When you think about that multiracial history, that just creates an entire set of dynamics where folks are not just thinking about the black-white color line, they're not just thinking about race through that lens.

Even today just thinking about how many immigrants live in California, I think nationally the average of foreign-born residents is something around 15%. In California over one-fourth of the population is foreign-born.

How did this diversity in the Golden State’s early days shape immigration and policy?

If you take a look at some of the earliest laws passed by the California territorial legislature and once it became a state, many of [them] aiming to restrict folks from coming in didn't just target Black Americans, but actually targeted Chinese. There were laws passed to restrict where different folks could settle.

Another thing that has to be said is that California used to be Mexico. And so when you think about how California came into the United States, it was captured after the Mexican-American War of 1848. So you already had a lot of folks who were just Mexican, who were living on this land. They didn’t move, but the government of the territory — who was controlling the land — changed after 1848. Not to mention the indigenous folks who have been here before everyone else was here, and who continue to be here today.

How did this complicate immigration policy, deciding who gets to live where and who gets to be part of this country, through that California lens?

There is a longer history. Folks will often ask, “was the U.S. open borders before the 1880s [or] 1870s?” I think a lot of historians have done work to show that individual states and territories tried really hard to restrict who was coming into their jurisdiction. Massachusetts [and] New York, they were trying to keep out Irish paupers. Oregon tried to ban Black residents in the 1840s, back when it was a territory.

But the way that the government set up it's really the U.S. Congress that was supposed to be in charge of U.S. immigration and naturalization policy. So we begin to see federal immigration restrictions targeting Chinese in the 1870s and 1880s. That's around the time that the United States doesn't just create an anti-Chinese exclusion regime, it also creates an entire U.S. immigration bureaucracy with the 1882 Immigration Act.

Things really do change because now the federal government hires immigration officials. They begin to monitor or track who’s coming into the United States, what kinds of people they’re trying to bring in, what kinds of people they eventually try to exclude. Chinese are obviously some of the first people, but later a lot of those exclusions and restrictions get expanded to other groups, including all Asians by the early 20th century.

Has race always been connected to U.S. immigration policy?

I would say so. I think immigration and naturalization policy have always been kind of entangled. The fact that the Chinese Exclusion Act gets passed the same year as the 1882 Immigration Act and Chinese are the first targets of U.S. federal immigration restrictions, that tells you something about how people are imagining who is part of the American nation.

You can see it as early as the 1790 Naturalization [Act] which restricts U.S. citizenship to “free white persons.” That law sets the groundwork for a racialized idea of who belongs to the nation, and who can actually exercise voting rights and other privileges in the nation.

Of course that changes as time goes on. After the Civil War, once formerly-enslaved Black Americans are emancipated, the 14th Amendment was created. The birthright citizenship piece that we're talking about now, that gets created and passed primarily to create a legal status for Black Americans. And so 1860s onward, persons of African descent are able to become citizens, anyone born on U.S. soil is able to become a U.S. citizen. [In the] 1880s certain Native Americans, indigenous folks are able to become U.S. citizens under very specific circumstances… that's the Dawes Act.

I need to say this because I don't think most folks realize this. U.S. citizenship [was] racially restricted; there are racial restrictions until 1952. I study Asian immigration at length; one of the things that really distinguishes Asian immigration to the U.S. is that unless you were born on U.S. soil, if you came from Asia you could not become a citizen because of your race…. That did not change until the Cold War.

So much of that history looked at race, but also the timing and era in which you’re looking at U.S. policies.

Those histories are really fascinating to think about. I think there are contemporary parallels as well. When you think about the politics of immigrants, the children of immigrants, and then once you get to the third, fourth, fifth generation, I think there's a way in which people who feel kind of far from the migration experience might not think about these laws as relevant to them or to their lives.

But for all people who live in the United States, immigration and naturalization policy matter a lot because they really set the stage for what this country is. Is this country a multiracial democracy or is it something else? When you think about what it means to be American, the United States is not exceptional. But because of how powerful it has been, especially since the World War II period, you can't ignore the United States. What the U.S. does in terms of which immigrants it admits [and] which ones it doesn’t, those decisions have huge implications globally.

I just want to emphasize again how much power law has to shape and transform people's lives. For folks who are watching the news and thinking, "birthright citizenship, this doesn't really apply to me,” it kind of does insofar as we have to think about what kind of nation we want to live in? If you have children or other folks in your life, what kind of nation do you want them to live in… who should be able to participate?

What would you like people to better understand about why birthright citizenship, as it has been interpreted in the United States, has existed this way? 

First I would say out of 190+ countries in the world, about 30-35 countries offer unconditional birthright citizenship, this includes the United States. This means citizenship goes to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' status.

Every country has its own very distinct history, but [in] the United States if you even just look back at early American writings — late 1700s, early 1800s, people are thinking about the United States as a nation of immigrants. A speech by the famed black abolitionist Frederick Douglass writing in the 1860s is called the “Composite Nationa.” Douglass is writing about Black folks, white folks, indigenous folks, Chinese and Japanese immigrants coming to the U.S., and he’s describing really a multiracial democracy where all of those people can coexist and participate in the nation.

I think this idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy has very long historical origin, so the proposal to change the way that it gets practiced today after more than a century, that's really something to take very seriously and to watch very carefully.

What are some big misconceptions that you'd like to address?

One thing I'd like to make sure folks realize is just how hard it is to become a U.S. citizen. There’s this conception that folks are just willy-nilly entering, and just everyone can become a citizen. That has never really been true. As I just described, there have been racial restrictions on U.S. citizenship from most of U.S. history.

But if you even think about the immigration system today, I can't tell you how long the lines are for people who are trying to apply for legal pathways to enter the United States, much less become U.S. citizens. The backlog is many years, decades in some cases. It really isn't a matter of people showing up and getting what they want, that's not how it works.

The other thing I want to emphasize is just how contingent and arbitrary immigration naturalization policies have been in the United States. The way that these laws develop, ordinary folks don't have a lot of control over [them] and yet these laws shape and impact so many people's lives.

But I think it's really important to have empathy and to understand contingency in these histories. And also to think about what could have been, but also to think about what could still be.

El año pasado, la Oficina del Sheriff del condado de San Diego transfirió a casi tres veces más personas detenidas a la custodia del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) que en 2024, según un informe anual.

El aumento drástico en estas transferencias se debe casi por completo a un incremento en las órdenes federales emitidas por ICE, lo que ha reavivado los llamados para que la sheriff Kelly Martinez ponga fin a esta práctica.

Bajo las leyes de “santuario” de California, los sheriffs pueden transferir a personas inmigrantes detenidas a ICE siempre y cuando hayan sido condenadas por ciertos delitos o si ICE presenta una orden federal.

En 2025, los agentes del sheriff transfirieron a 83 personas a ICE, frente a 30 transferencias en 2024. Martinez compartió estas cifras la semana pasada durante un foro público. Los datos muestran que 53 de las transferencias en 2025 se realizaron con base en órdenes federales.

Aunque muchas de las 83 personas tenían condenas por delitos violentos como homicidio, agresión, secuestro y abuso infantil, varias tenían delitos no violentos cometidos años atrás.

Por ejemplo, un ciudadano mexicano con una condena por robo en 1996 fue arrestado nuevamente en mayo de 2025 por posesión de drogas. La Oficina del Sheriff utilizó la condena de 1996 como justificación para transferirlo.

Familiares de uno de los hombres transferidos el año pasado, Cosme Koutalou, dijeron que llevaba 15 años viviendo en Estados Unidos.“La situación migratoria está completamente fuera de control”, dijo su tía, Memee Hernández, durante el foro. “Que te detengan por vidrios polarizados… y luego te arresten y te envíen a quién sabe dónde, imagínense cómo nos sentimos”.

Los registros muestran que Koutalou, ciudadano cubano, fue condenado por robo en 2022 y arrestado nuevamente en enero de 2025 por violar su libertad condicional. Días después fue transferido a ICE y posteriormente deportado a México.

Defensores de los inmigrantes pidieron a Martinez que deje de transferir a residentes de San Diego a ICE. Señalan que la ley estatal es discrecional, es decir, no obliga a los sheriffs a realizar estas transferencias, solo las permite. Activistas destacaron que otros condados, como Los Ángeles, ya han dejado de hacerlo.

La supervisora del condado, Paloma Aguirre, dijo que las leyes de santuario buscan fortalecer la confianza entre las autoridades locales y las comunidades inmigrantes, y argumentó que estas transferencias la debilitan.

“Sabemos que estamos viviendo en un momento en el que el miedo es real en nuestras comunidades; incluso lo llamaría terror”, dijo.

Hacia el final del foro, Aguirre preguntó a Martinez si planeaba cambiar la política de su oficina.

Martinez respondió que no. Afirmó que es más seguro para los agentes de ICE recoger a las personas dentro de las cárceles del condado que salir a las comunidades, donde podrían terminar arrestando a personas sin antecedentes penales, lo que ICE denomina “arrestos colaterales”.

“Si salen a la comunidad, habrá daños colaterales, y esa es mi mayor preocupación”, dijo Martinez.

En 2024, los supervisores del condado intentaron limitar la capacidad de Martinez para transferir detenidos a ICE. Sin embargo, ella ha sostenido que, como funcionaria electa de manera independiente, tiene la autoridad “única y exclusiva” para operar el sistema de cárceles del condado.

Reps. Sara Jacobs, D-San Diego, and Mike Levin, D-Oceanside, said they visited a holding area, medical facilities, law library and chapel.

Levin said it’s hard to know whether what they saw on Thursday reflects day-to-day conditions at the facility, which is run by private prison operator CoreCivic.

“How much of that was for us, versus how much is the standard, ordinary course of how they conduct business day in and day out?” he said. “That's why it's important that in addition to the tours that we just took, which we had announced in advance, that we come unannounced.”

California Sen. Alex Padilla was denied access to the detention center during an unannounced visit in February.

San Diego County Supervisors Paloma Aguirre and Terra Lawson-Remer also tried to inspect the facility the same day as Padilla but were also denied. The County sued the Department of Homeland Security this month, saying California law allows counties to conduct public health inspections at private detention centers.

On Thursday, Levin described the medical facility and its cleanliness as being “roughly on par” with civilian facilities.

“I believe that they're doing the best that they can with the staff that they have in the circumstances that they find themselves in,” he said.

The Department of Homeland Security says detention facilities provide medical intake screenings and access to 24-hour emergency care.

Levin said detention center staff told him that if someone misses three doses of medication, staff follow up with them.

“There really is an attempt to follow up and ensure that they are taking the medication that's needed,” he said. “Although, again, this is what we're all hearing.”

Levin has conducted a congressional oversight visit at the facility before. He said he spoke to a detainee last time he was there.

“He was getting the medication that he needed,” Levin said. “He said the food was not great, but it also was edible. You know, eating the same thing over and over again is not going to be the best.”

Levin and Jacobs also sampled the food at the facility’s cafeteria. Levin said it was pork and beans and a hot dog, and “it was relatively fresh and edible.”

Jacobs said her office had requested to speak with detainees during the visit, but that a miscommunication between federal officials and the facility meant it didn’t happen on schedule.

“They finally offered it right at the very end, when we had ten minutes left,” she said. “So we've let them know that we will plan on coming back to meet with folks, because we do think it's really important to hear from the people directly who are in here, what they're experiencing.”

Jacobs and Levin said they plan to conduct unannounced oversight visits in the coming months.

A federal judge ruled that Border Patrol agents continued making illegal stops and arrests after she ordered them to quit.

In a tersely worded decision unsealed Thursday morning, the judge wrote that agents had “again detained people without reasonable suspicion,” relying on broad assumptions about day laborers instead of specific evidence of immigration violations.

The ruling by Judge Jennifer Thurston of the Eastern District of California grants a United Farm Workers motion to enforce a preliminary injunction the judge issued last year. That motion barred Border Patrol agents from detaining people in California’s Central Valley without documenting the specific facts and reasoning for the stops. According to one legal expert, the ruling gives the Trump administration an opportunity to comply before consequences could escalate.

Thurston highlighted that point during a hearing last year, telling the federal government: “You just can’t walk up to people with Brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers.”

Thurston’s original order also prohibited agents from carrying out warrantless arrests without first assessing whether a person is a flight risk.

A raid on a Home Depot in Sacramento

At the center of the case is a July operation in Sacramento where agents swarmed the parking lot of a Home Depot, detaining a group of day laborers. They arrested 11 noncitizens and one U.S. citizen, according to court records.

After the Sacramento raid, Gregory Bovino, then a Border Patrol sector chief, stood in front of the state Capitol building in Sacramento and told Fox News that “Sacramento is not a sanctuary city. The state of California is not a sanctuary state. There is no sanctuary anywhere.”

Thurston, who is based in Fresno, said the Sacramento sweep violated her order from last year, which stemmed from similar raids in Kern County.

“Agents detained these people, demanded to see their ‘papers’ and questioned them about their immigration status all without any legal basis for doing so,” Thurston wrote.

Border Patrol did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A sweep based on surveillance?

Attorneys for the federal government argued in court documents that the Home Depot parking lot sweep was based on surveillance, intelligence and what agents described as “common knowledge” that workers congregate in Home Depot parking lots. The government argued that federal agents used surveillance video overlooking Home Depot and the surrounding areas, suggesting the use of a drone.

Thursday’s decision raises questions about how Border Patrol is documenting its operations. Agents submitted nearly identical reports for multiple arrests, while their own names were redacted from the government paperwork. Some of their records had inaccuracies or could not be matched to specific individuals. In some cases, it was unclear who authored their reports.

In one case, an agent wrote he arrested someone after “a short foot pursuit.”

The judge found the walking distance from the Home Depot to the location of the arrest was a twelve-minute walk and that the documentation of the arrest was “inaccurate and underinclusive.”

Thurston also found that Border Patrol’s records failed to meet requirements in her prior injunction to document specific facts and reasoning for each stop and arrest.

Dispute over ‘Kavanaugh stops’

The types of stops that do not rely on reasonable suspicion, which became known as “Kavanaugh stops” last year after an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, faced a separate legal challenge in another case that reached the nation’s highest court. The Supreme Court ruled in September that it could pause a temporary restraining order issued by a lower court in L.A. against similar detentive stops without cause. But U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong wrote that the Supreme Court decision did not bless those kinds of stops, writing, “The Supreme Court has not issued any decisions saying that what the Government did in Los Angeles—and appears to continue doing—was lawful.”

Judge Thurston, appointed by Biden in late 2021, did not grant UFW’s request to compel Border Patrol agents to receive additional training to comply with the preliminary injunction, though she said she expected agents in the field to immediately comply with the court’s order.

The ruling was sealed for 14 days so “personally identifiable information” and “sensitive law enforcement” information, such as Border Patrol agents’ names, could be redacted.

“The ruling upholds what we’ve been saying all along: you can’t just stop people for being brown and working class.” said Elizabeth Strater, vice president of the United Farm Workers.

‘Judicial constraint’

Kevin Johnson, a UC Davis School of Law professor whose work focuses on immigration and civil rights, said the judge is exercising judicial constraint by giving the Trump administration an opportunity to comply with her prior order. The consequences could escalate, though.

“It’s part of a process, and the punishments could increase later on,” said Johnson. “Now, she’s just saying comply with the order, but later she could impose fines and penalties.”

Johnson said the penalties could even increase up to criminal contempt if Border Patrol and the federal government continue to ignore Thurston’s order. He mentioned a 2017 case in which former Maricopa County (Arizona) sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt for continuing to violate a 2011 federal court order that prohibited him from detaining Latinos solely because of their suspected immigration status.

Trump later pardoned him.

It was a Holy Week reenactment of how Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem, where he faced trial before being crucified.

They wanted to show migrants the same reverence as they entered their place of judgment.

Sister Francina Vivier volunteers accompanying migrants to their immigration hearings and interviews.

Many migrants come alone, without legal representation or family, she said. Often, they speak limited English.

“All the terminology, all the jargon — people are afraid because they've received a letter, they don't know what it means,” she said.

She said going in with them to the courtroom wasn't an issue with staff.

“It’s supposed to be open to the public. So in August, I would go up and I would tell them that I was here to be, to observe, just to sit in the back court. And that was very — it was very easily done,” she said.

But she said restrictions have tightened in recent weeks. She’s been asked to wait outside the courtroom, sometimes for half an hour.

And on the second floor, where interviews and detentions take place, “They've put up a sign there that says, ‘No loitering.’ Again, two weeks ago, I was asked to leave, and if I didn't, I would be escorted out by federal police,” she said.

She said one volunteer received a citation for standing and praying for migrants.

Wednesday morning, Bishop Michael Pham reaffirmed the church’s commitment to continue coming anyway.

“Despite these challenges, we are here today to publicly proclaim that we are not going away,” he said. “We are not afraid. We will not be intimidated to stop doing what we do.”

Together, the crowd prayed for the migrants: that they would receive necessary medications and wouldn’t die in detention; that they would be given adequate food and humane treatment; that families would not be forced into deeper hardship after losing jobs and wages; that no one would stand alone.

“We are here, amen?” he called out.

“Amen,” the crowd responded.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review did not immediately answer KPBS’s questions about the restrictions.

In February, Reverend Scott Santarosa of Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish sent a letter requesting a meeting with Judge Catherine Halliday-Roberts, the acting assistant chief immigration judge in San Diego, and the court administration. He said he never heard back.

Last year, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office transferred almost three times more inmates to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody than in 2024, according to an annual transfer report.

The dramatic increase in transfers is almost entirely due to a spike in federal warrants from ICE and has led to renewed calls for Sheriff Kelly Martinez to end the practice.

Under California’s sanctuary laws, county sheriffs can transfer immigrant inmates to ICE custody as long as they’ve been convicted of certain crimes or if ICE presents a federal warrant.

In 2025, sheriff’s deputies transferred 83 people to ICE custody, up from 30 transfers in 2024. Martinez shared the numbers last week during a public forum. Data show federal warrants accounted for 53 of the 2025 transfers.

While many of the 83 transfers had violent criminal convictions like murder, assault, kidnapping and child abuse, several had nonviolent offenses from several years ago.

For example, a Mexican national with a 1996 robbery conviction was rearrested for drug possession in May 2025. The Sheriff’s Office used the 1996 conviction as justification for the transfer.

Relatives of one man transferred last year, Cosme Koutalou, said he had been in the U.S. for 15 years.

“Immigration is getting completely out of control,” his aunt Memee Hernandez, said at the forum. “Being pulled over for tinted windows … and then being arrested and sent to the middle of nowhere, just imagine how we feel.”

Records show Koutalou, a Cuban national, was convicted of robbery in 2022 and rearrested for a parole violation in January 2025. A few days later he was transferred to ICE custody and then deported to Mexico.

Immigrant advocates at the forum asked Martinez to stop transferring San Diegans to ICE custody. They point out that state sanctuary law is discretionary — meaning it does not force sheriffs to transfer inmates, it merely allows them to. Activists noted that other counties, like Los Angeles, have ended the practice.

County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre said the state’s sanctuary laws are meant to increase trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. And she argued transferring inmates to ICE custody erodes that trust.

“We know we’re living in a time where fear is real in our communities, I would even call it terror,” she said.

Toward the end of the forum, Aguirre asked Martinez whether she planned to change her office’s policy.

Martinez said she would not. She said it’s safer for ICE agents to pick up targets in county jails instead of going out in the community and potentially arresting people with no criminal history — a practice ICE describes as “collateral arrests.”

“If they’re going to go into the community, there will be collateral damage and that’s my biggest concern,” Martinez said.

In 2024, county supervisors tried to limit Martinez’s ability to transfer inmates to ICE. However, Martinez has argued that, as an independently elected official, she has the “sole and exclusive” authority to operate the county jail system.

Una de las primeras cosas que hizo una emigrada argentina después de que su hijo naciera en Florida el año pasado fue conseguirle un pasaporte de Estados Unidos.

Ella veía el pasaporte como una prueba tangible de que él es estadounidense. Pero ahora personas como ella están enfrascadas en una batalla legal por la orden ejecutiva del presidente Donald Trump que negaría la ciudadanía a los niños nacidos en Estados Unidos de personas que están en el país de manera ilegal o temporal.

"Es gracioso porque, en realidad, le reservé la cita para la solicitud del pasaporte incluso antes de que naciera", comentó la mujer de 28 años, mientras su hijo, que ahora tiene 7 meses, dormía una siesta cerca. Habló con The Associated Press bajo condición de anonimato, exigida por sus abogados, por temor a posibles represalias del gobierno republicano si se la identificaba públicamente.

"Diría que definitivamente me alivia que al menos él esté protegido", manifestó.

La Corte Suprema escuchará argumentos el miércoles sobre si la orden de Trump, firmada el 20 de enero de 2025, su primer día de regreso en el cargo, se ajusta a la 14ª Enmienda posterior a la Guerra Civil y a una ley federal de hace 86 años que se ha entendido ampliamente como la que convierte en ciudadanos a todos los nacidos en el país, con excepciones limitadas para los hijos de diplomáticos extranjeros y de ejércitos invasores. Todos los tribunales que han considerado el asunto han determinado que la orden es ilegal y han impedido que entre en vigor.

El llamado a derogar la ciudadanía por nacimiento forma parte de la ofensiva del gobierno de Trump contra los inmigrantes, que ha incluido un aumento de las deportaciones, reducciones drásticas en el número de refugiados admitidos, la suspensión del asilo en la frontera y la eliminación de protecciones legales temporales para personas que huyen de la inestabilidad política y económica.

El caso presenta otra prueba para un alto tribunal que ha permitido que continúen algunos esfuerzos antiinmigración, incluso después de que tribunales inferiores los bloquearan. El caso ante el tribunal proviene de Nueva Hampshire, donde el juez federal de distrito Joseph N. LaPlante dictaminó que la orden "probablemente viola" tanto la Constitución como la ley federal.

Constitución vs. orden ejecutiva

La primera frase de la 14ª Enmienda, la Cláusula de Ciudadanía, convierte en ciudadanos a "todas las personas nacidas o naturalizadas en Estados Unidos, y sujetas a su jurisdicción". El caso gira en torno al significado de la frase final sobre la jurisdicción, que también se utilizó en leyes de ciudadanía promulgadas en 1940 y 1952.

La postura de Trump, expuesta en la orden titulada "Protegiendo el significado y el valor de la ciudadanía estadounidense" y respaldada por algunos académicos derechistas, sostiene que las personas que están aquí de manera ilegal o temporal no están "sujetas a la jurisdicción" de Estados Unidos y, por lo tanto, sus hijos nacidos en el país no tienen derecho a la ciudadanía.

El tribunal debería aprovechar el caso para corregir "malentendidos de larga data sobre el significado de la Constitución", escribió el procurador general D. John Sauer.

En ese sentido, Sauer comparó el caso con la decisión fundamental de 1954 en Brown v. Board of Education, que prohibió la segregación racial en las escuelas públicas, y con el histórico caso Heller de 2008, que declaró que las personas tienen un derecho constitucional a poseer armas para la autodefensa.

El año pasado, la jueza Sonia Sotomayor calificó el esfuerzo del gobierno de Trump por sostener la orden como "una tarea imposible a la luz del texto de la Constitución, su historia, los precedentes de este tribunal, la ley federal y la práctica del Poder Ejecutivo".

Sotomayor fue acompañada por los otros dos jueces liberales en un voto disidente frente a una decisión de los seis jueces conservadores del tribunal, que utilizó una ronda anterior de la disputa sobre la ciudadanía por nacimiento para limitar el uso de medidas cautelares de alcance nacional por parte de jueces federales.

Impugnando a Trump

Las madres embarazadas y sus defensores que impugnan la orden, así como los jueces de tribunales inferiores que la han bloqueado, han señalado que los argumentos del gobierno de Trump carecen de fundamento.

"Tenemos al presidente de Estados Unidos intentando reinterpretar radicalmente la definición de ciudadanía estadounidense", afirmó Cecillia Wang, directora legal de la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles, quien se enfrentará a Sauer el miércoles.

Más de un cuarto de millón de bebés nacidos en Estados Unidos cada año se verían afectados por la orden ejecutiva, según investigaciones del Migration Policy Institute y del Population Research Institute de la Universidad Estatal de Pensilvania.

Aunque Trump se ha centrado en la inmigración ilegal en su retórica y sus acciones, las restricciones a la ciudadanía por nacimiento también se aplicarían a personas que están legalmente en Estados Unidos, incluidos estudiantes y solicitantes de la green card, o estatus de residente permanente.

"Lo más hermoso"

La mujer de Argentina contó que llegó a Estados Unidos en 2016 con una visa para asistir a la universidad y desde entonces ha solicitado una green card.

Describió un momento de pánico tras el fallo del tribunal en junio, cuando al menos era posible que las restricciones entraran en vigor, particularmente en estados como Florida que no habían impugnado la orden de Trump. Fallos de tribunales inferiores durante el verano garantizaron que la orden siguiera suspendida y prepararon el terreno para el caso actual ante la Corte Suprema.

Además de las preocupaciones previsibles de una madre primeriza, explicó: "Nunca pensé que, ya sabes, tan cerca del final de mi embarazo, tendría que estar siquiera pensando en... la orden ejecutiva y en cómo habría afectado a mi bebé".

No ha reconsiderado su decisión de venir a Estados Unidos ni su deseo de quedarse, indicó, mientras su hijo se movía.

"Así que nada de lo que pase, políticamente o de otro tipo, habría cambiado mi visión del país, porque me dio lo más hermoso que tengo hoy, que es mi familia", expresó.

___________________________________

Esta historia fue traducida del inglés por un editor de AP con ayuda de una herramienta de inteligencia artificial generativa.

One of the first things an Argentine emigre did after her son was born in Florida last year was get him a U.S. passport.

She saw the passport as tangible evidence that he's an American. But now people like her are in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's executive order that would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

“It’s funny because I actually booked him for his passport application appointment even before he was born,” the 28-year-old woman said, as her now 7-month-old son napped nearby. She spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, insisted upon by her lawyers, out of fear of possible retribution by the Republican administration if she were publicly identified.

“I would say that I am definitely relieved that at least he is protected,” she said.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Wednesday over whether Trump's order, signed on Jan. 20, 2025, his first day back in office, comports with the post-Civil War 14th Amendment and an 86-year-old federal law that has been widely understood to make citizens of everyone born in the country, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies. Every court to have considered the issue has found the order to be illegal and prevented it from taking effect.

The call to repeal birthright citizenship is part of the Trump administration's broader crackdown on immigrants that has included stepped-up deportations, drastic reductions in the number of refugees allowed into the U.S., suspension of asylum at the border and stripping temporary legal protections from people fleeing political and economic instability.

The case presents another test for a high court that has allowed some anti-immigration efforts to continue, even after lower courts had blocked them. The case before the court comes from New Hampshire, where U.S. District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante ruled that the order “likely violates” both the Constitution and federal law.

Constitution vs. executive order
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, the Citizenship Clause, makes citizens of “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The case turns on the meaning of the final phrase about jurisdiction, which also was used in citizenship laws enacted in 1940 and 1952.

Trump's view, asserted in the order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” and backed by some conservative legal scholars, is that people here illegally or temporarily are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore their U.S.-born children are not entitled to citizenship.

The court should use the case to set straight "long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

In that regard, Sauer likened the case to the seminal 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in public schools, and the landmark 2008 Heller case, which declared that people have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense.

Last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Trump administration's effort to defend the order "an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.”

Sotomayor was joined by the other two liberal justices in a dissent from a decision by the court’s six conservative justices that used an earlier round of the birthright citizenship dispute to limit the use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges.

Challenging Trump
The pregnant mothers and their advocates challenging the order, as well as lower-court judges who have blocked it, have said the Trump administration's arguments lack merit.

"We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship,” said Cecillia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union legal director who will face off against Sauer on Wednesday.

More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would be affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.

While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright restrictions also would apply to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.

‘The most beautiful thing’
The woman from Argentina said she came to the U.S. in 2016 on a visa to attend college and has since applied for a green card.

She described a moment of panic following the court’s June ruling, when it was at least possible that the restrictions could take effect, particularly in states such as Florida that had not challenged Trump's order. Lower-court rulings over the summer ensured the order remained on hold and set up the current Supreme Court case.

On top of the predictable worries of a first-time mother, she said, “I never thought that, you know, so close to the end of my pregnancy that I would have to be even thinking about ... the executive order and how it would have impacted my baby.”

She has not reconsidered her decision to come to the United States or her desire to stay, she said, as her son stirred.

“And so nothing that happens, politically or otherwise, would have changed my views of the country, I mean, because it gave me the most beautiful thing I have today, which is my family,” she said.