The California Sanctuary Law is not just another public policy measure; It is a real and dangerous obstacle to the work of the authorities to guarantee public safety and law and order. For this reason, the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has joined with the city of El Cajon to challenge this statute in court.

Although the case originates in a particular city, its consequences can extend to the entire state. At the heart of the case is a fundamental question: Does the state's Sanctuary Law allow local governments to carry out their most basic responsibility—that is, protecting their residents, including immigrants, from crime—without fearing legal retaliation? The law imposes strict restrictions on local police that prohibit cooperation with federal authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even in situations in which such cooperation could prevent harm to citizens.

For millions of Hispanic and immigrant families in California, safety is a daily concern. Its residents want safe streets, good schools and the ability to raise their children without fear of crime, violence or exploitation. California's Sanctuary Law, however, jeopardizes those priorities.

The consequences of this policy are not theoretical. The El Cajon lawsuit was sparked by state Attorney General Rob Bonta's troubling response to a basic question: Can El Cajon police conduct a welfare check on an unaccompanied minor based on credible information provided by federal law enforcement agencies? In his response, Bonta warned the city that such a simple preventative measure could violate state law.

For any parent, and particularly those from immigrant families who came to our country in search of peace and security, the attorney general's assertion is highly concerning. A system that hesitates in the face of a child who may be in danger is not compassionate; It's broken.

Sanctuary city advocates insist that these laws guarantee the safety of immigrant communities, but the reality is the opposite. By limiting cooperation between law enforcement agencies, sanctuary laws create environments in which illegal immigrants involved in criminal activity are at lower risk of being held accountable and in which communication between local and federal authorities is viewed as a risk rather than a necessity. Over time, this creates a vulnerability that traffickers, gang members and habitual criminals take advantage of. And those who suffer from this are not the politicians in Sacramento, but the residents of the state, often in Hispanic and immigrant neighborhoods.

Aside from the human cost, California's Sanctuary Law presents serious constitutional problems. Its proponents openly stated their intention when filing: to allow illegal immigrants to live in the state “without fear of deportation,” which conflicts with federal law that prohibits aiding and abetting illegal immigrants to remain in the country illegally (U.S.C. § 1324). A law designed to prevent compliance with federal law is not just an act of resistance; It is an invitation to disorder and impunity.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes clear that federal law prevails in the event of a conflict with state law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that states cannot pass measures that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration law. However, that is exactly what the California Sanctuary Law does; limits cooperation between federal and state authorities while making compliance with federal law optional.

As you might expect, Sanctuary Law apologists will try to say that the lawsuit is an attack on immigrants, which is false and wrong. El Cajon is not a bastion of nativism; It is a diverse city in which approximately 30% of residents are Hispanic. The lawsuit is not anti-immigrant; It is pro-community. Its goal is to protect all state residents, regardless of their background, from the very real threats posed by criminals who take advantage of vulnerabilities created by sanctuary policies.

California's Sanctuary Law is dangerous in practice, unconstitutional in design, and harmful to the communities it claims to defend. AFPI's lawsuit is an effort to clarify applicable law, reaffirm the rule of law, and prioritize the safety of state residents over purely political considerations. All it requires is that state law stop penalizing police for doing their job and protecting the community.

(*) Alfonso Aguilar is director of Hispanic Outreach at the America First Policy Institute and Former Chief of Citizenship of the United States. Mike Garcia is President of America First California and former Member of Congress (R-CA).

The texts published in this section are the sole responsibility of the authors, so La Opinión does not assume responsibility for them.