Decision time for governor on bill to create sanctuary state
SACRAMENTO — If Gov. Jerry Brown ends up signing a pending bill to make California a sanctuary state for unauthorized immigrants, it will be an about-face for the governor, who publicly opposed the idea of sanctuary cities several years ago.
While it’s often difficult to predict Brown’s actions, many Capitol observers expect him to approve it, given both California’s political landscape and Democratic antipathy toward President Trump.
The governor’s office declined to comment on SB54, but there are clues to his sympathies. During a March interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Brown said: “I’m following a very fine line here. I want to work with him (Trump) where there is something good, but I’m not going to turn over our police department to become agents of the federal government as they deport women and children and people who are contributing to the economic wellbeing of our state.”
But as the state’s attorney general in 2010, during the Obama administration, Brown told The Chronicle: “I don't support sanctuary cities . ... Just opening up the cities and saying our borders don't mean anything, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, I’m not going there.”
His views appear to have moved over the years — not unlike those of many of his fellow Democrats.
“We are in such a heightened political environment that even despite his instinct or what he might think is good or bad policy, he would have a difficult time sending that back when this Legislature is doing everything it possibly can to strike a defiant tone,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant.
The bill, sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Kevin de León of Los Angeles, would bar local and state law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement or using any of their resources to do so, under almost all circumstances. Critics say it ties the hands of local sheriffs and police chiefs when dealing with violent and serious felons.
The bill has already won Senate approval with a vote along party lines, and it is expected to clear the Assembly.
Brown’s changing comments are reflective of shifting California political and public attitudes about sanctuary and immigrants living illegally in the state, experts say.
“He does appear to have an aversion to any declaration of sanctuary, but at the same time he is clear that he thinks state and local law enforcement should not be the puppet of federal law enforcement authorities,” said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law.
In addition, experts point to Brown’s choice for attorney general as a harbinger of his evolving take on immigration issues. In March, his pick for the job, Xavier Becerra, filed a brief in support of Santa Clara County’s challenge to Trump’s executive order, which went after sanctuary jurisdictions. Last month, a judge upheld that challenge.
Bill Hing, law professor at the University of San Francisco, said that while the Trump administration is stirring up palpable fear in immigrant communities, SB54 gives the governor the opportunity to react.
“California needs to counteract that fear, and I believe the governor understands that need and will actually sign this bill in spite of what he said six or seven years ago,” Hing said. “The governor understands we are dealing with a different world. The state needs to send a more reassuring message to its residents.”
Some observers don’t rule out the possibility that Brown will veto SB54. In 2012, the governor killed similar legislation, although he said he agreed with its intent to protect unauthorized immigrants with minor offenses from being detained by local police at the request of the federal authorities.
“Unfortunately, the list of offenses codified in the bill is fatally flawed because it omits many serious crimes,” he wrote in his veto letter.
Two years later, the governor signed a modified version of the bill, known as the Trust Act. It prohibits local law enforcement from holding unauthorized immigrants charged with most low-level, nonviolent offenses for transfer to federal authorities.
This year’s proposed sanctuary bill, however, goes further. It would prohibit local police agencies from asking about immigration status, and it bars them from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — including for those charged with serious or violent felonies.
Johnson, the law school dean, said Brown must balance the concerns of police officers and sheriffs who see this as state meddling in their ability to enforce the law in individual situations against those who worry that immigrant trust in the police will break down if they are viewed as cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
“The governor is going to look carefully to ensure that state and local law enforcement officers policy decisions are respected while understanding also that federal immigration law should be enforced against serious criminals,” Johnson said. “There have been enough revisions to quell concerns about providing undue protections to persons convicted of crimes, and it seems he’s likely to sign this bill.”