Is San Diego prepared for large-scale federal immigration enforcement?

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.

Lara McCaffrey

/

KPBS

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.