California’s sanctuary law is not merely a policy preference—it imposes real and dangerous constraints on public safety and the rule of law. That is why the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) is representing the City of El Cajon in a lawsuit challenging California law.

While the case originates in one city, its consequences could extend statewide. At its core is a fundamental question—can local governments fulfill their most basic responsibility: protecting residents, including immigrants, from harm, without fear of reprisal due to state sanctuary laws?

Across the state, local law enforcement officers operate under restrictions that prohibit cooperation with federal authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even in situations where that cooperation could prevent harm. As a result, officers are forced to weigh whether doing their job, protecting a potential victim, could expose them to legal consequences under state law.

For millions of Hispanic and immigrant families across California, safety isn’t just a political talking point; it’s a daily concern. These communities are built on hard work, faith, and a deep respect for the rule of law. They want safe streets, strong schools, and the ability to raise their children without fear of crime, violence, and exploitation.

Yet California’s sanctuary law increasingly puts those priorities at risk.

The consequences of this policy are not theoretical. El Cajon’s lawsuit stems from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s disturbing response to a real‑world question: can El Cajon police officers perform a wellness check on an unaccompanied minor, based on credible information provided by federal law enforcement? City officials were warned that this simple act of safety might violate state law.

For any parent, that should be alarming. For immigrant families, many of whom come to this country seeking safety and opportunity, it is deeply troubling. A system that causes hesitation in the face of a potentially endangered child is not compassionate; it is broken.

Proponents of sanctuary policies insist these laws make immigrant communities safer. The opposite is true. By restricting law enforcement cooperation, sanctuary laws create environments where criminal illegal aliens face a lower risk of accountability and where communication between local and federal agencies is treated as a liability rather than a necessity. Over time, this creates a gap that traffickers, gang members, and repeat offenders can exploit.

Who suffers most when those gaps exist? It’s not politicians in Sacramento. It’s the communities themselves, often Hispanic and immigrant neighborhoods, where law-abiding families are left more vulnerable as violence and crime in their communities go unaddressed.

Beyond its human cost, California’s sanctuary law raises serious constitutional concerns. Its legislative supporters openly stated their intent: to allow illegal aliens to live in California “without fear of deportation.” That intent directly conflicts with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which prohibits aiding and abetting illegal aliens to remain in the country illegally. A state law designed to impede federal enforcement is not just an act of resistance; it is an invitation to lawlessness.

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes clear that federal law prevails in cases of conflict. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that states may not enact measures that obstruct federal immigration enforcement. Yet California’s sanctuary law does exactly that—restricting cooperation between federal and local authorities while signaling that compliance with federal law is optional.

Predictably, defenders of California’s sanctuary law will frame this lawsuit as an attack on immigrants. That accusation is both false and misleading. El Cajon is not a bastion of nativism; it is a diverse city where roughly 30 percent of residents are Hispanic. The lawsuit is not anti‑immigrant; it is pro‑community. Its goal is to protect all residents, regardless of origin, from the very real threat posed by criminal actors who exploit the gaps sanctuary policies create.

Public safety depends on coordination, not fragmentation. Cities like El Cajon should never be forced to choose between complying with state directives and acting to protect individuals who may be trafficked or in danger. Local law enforcement should not have to hesitate when a child may be in danger or when credible information could prevent a crime. They should have the ability to act decisively.

California’s sanctuary law has failed its test.

It is dangerous in practice, unconstitutional in design, and harmful to the communities it claims to defend. The prospect of being legally incentivized to neglect an abandoned child is not an exaggerated hypothetical; it is a warning. This lawsuit is a call to restore clarity, uphold the rule of law, and prioritize safety over ideology. It does not seek to turn local police into immigration agents. It simply demands that the law stop punishing officials for doing their jobs and protecting their communities.

(*) Alfonso Aguilar is Director of Hispanic Engagement at America First Policy Institute and former Chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship. Mike Garcia is Chair of America First California and former member of Congress (R-CA).