Massachusetts frees illegal alien child rape suspects on low bail as Mayor Wu doubles down on sanctuary laws
Massachusetts released illegal aliens with child rape charges back onto the streets by setting low bail amounts.
A Thursday WBZ-TV report looked into accusations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that local law enforcement had released suspected violent criminals.
— (@)
According to ICE press releases, Boston Police freed one individual, and others were released from jails or courts.
Jose Fernando-Perez, an illegal alien from Guatemala, was charged with three counts of forcible rape of a child and three counts of aggravated rape of a child. ICE arrested him in February after a court ignored the agency's detainer request, releasing him on "pre-trial conditions" in October 2022. WBZ reported that Fernando-Perez posted $7,500 bail with an order to remain at home.
'Giving sanctuary to violent criminal immigrants.'
Acting field office director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston, Patricia Hyde, stated that Fernando-Perez "is exactly the type of alien we are targeting with our 'worst first' policy."
"He posed a significant danger to the children of Massachusetts, and we will not tolerate such a threat to our community," Hyde said.
Stivenson Omar Perez-Ajtzalan, also an illegal alien from Guatemala, was charged with aggravated rape of a child with a 10-year age difference. He, too, posted his $7,500 bail and was released with a GPS monitor, according to WBZ. He was apprehended by ICE earlier this month.
"Not only did Perez display a blatant disregard for our immigration laws, he sexually assaulted a child. He came to this country to do harm, and now he must be made to face the consequences of his actions," Hyde stated.
Juan Alberto Rodezno-Marin, an illegal alien from Honduras, was released with a GPS monitor after he was charged with "indecent assault and battery on [a] person over 14, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, masked armed robbery and assault to rape." He was apprehended by ICE in January.
WBZ reported that Worcester County Jail released two individuals accused of child rape after they posted just $500 bail.
Two other inmates facing cocaine and fentanyl trafficking charges were bailed out on $500 and $4,000 bail.
Worcester County Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis told WBZ, "Most people would not think that's an appropriate bail."
Under Massachusetts law, local law enforcement is prohibited from holding an inmate based only on their illegal immigration status, thereby forbidding them from cooperating with ICE detainer requests.
"It's very frustrating for me to know I might have a drug trafficker or a violent offender, I call ICE and they're like, we're very busy with a couple situations, I can't get there for a few hours. I can't hold them right now," Evangelidis stated. "We've seen the detainers triple in the last three years. We were in the 30s a couple years ago. We exceeded 100 in 2024. To me, that means there are more people illegally in the Commonwealth committing crimes."
Meanwhile, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) continues to defend her city's sanctuary policies. During a State of the City speech last week, the mayor said she "stand[s] with immigrants."
"While this national moment isn't the one I — and so many families — had hoped for, I am grateful that my daughter gets to call this city home. Boston is not a city that tolerates tyranny," she said. "Boston doesn't back down."
During a 2023 interview with GBH's Boston Public Radio, Wu stated that everyone has a "legal right" to enter the U.S. to claim asylum and seek shelter.
President Donald Trump's administration responded to Wu's State of the City speech, claiming she had "doubled down on giving sanctuary to violent criminal immigrants."
"Why is Mayor Wu intent on defying the will of the American people and obstructing the Trump Administration's efforts to remove these monsters from our streets?" the administration questioned.
Wu accused the administration of spreading "reckless propaganda."
"Boston is proud to be the safest major city in the country, and we work with all levels of law enforcement every day to prevent crime and hold perpetrators accountable," Wu said. "If the Trump administration is truly concerned about safety, they should fund healthcare and education, support our veterans, pass common sense gun reforms, and stop threatening our economy."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Denver mayor used auto-delete messaging platform to have secret talks about migrant crisis
Democratic Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and his team used Signal, a messaging application with an auto-delete feature, to have secret communications about the sanctuary city's immigration crisis.
KCNC-TV revealed the scandal in a Thursday report, explaining that the mayor and 14 of his senior advisers, appointees, and lawyers created a "Strike Force" group on the application to have sensitive discussions that would otherwise have been accessible to the public through open records requests. Instead, the end-to-end encryption software and its auto-delete feature concealed their communications.
'Giving the impression that we are doing something we don't want the public to see.'
Joshua Posner, the mayor's director of strategic initiatives, sent a text message on January 15 to several administration members instructing them to move their conversations about immigration to Signal, KCNC reported.
Posner wrote, "We are going to use Signal to communicate with Strike Force so that communication remains encrypted and secure (and messages auto delete.)"
He proceeded to explain to the mayor's team how to download the application to their phones.
Steven Zansberg, a Denver attorney, told KCNC that the actions of the mayor and his administration were "unlawful."
"It deprives us of the rights we have as Coloradans to observe the conduct of public business," he stated, noting that three years is the "standard records retention requirement."
"It seems like a pretty plain, straightforward, deliberate effort to evade transparency," Zansberg concluded.
Jeff Roberts, director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, also argued that the move undermined that state's open records law.
"This is not transparent," Roberts told the news outlet. "They are giving the impression that we are doing something we don't want the public to see. The city is saying at the get-go, 'These are records the public should never see.'"
When confronted about the messaging scandal, Johnston's office blamed President Donald Trump's administration.
Jordan Fuja, a spokesperson for the mayor, told KCNC, "When President Trump took office in January, it was clear that there would be rapidly developing changes to the way the federal government interacts with cities that could have significant impacts on how Denver operates. The particular group was started in January for internal staff to easily keep track of and share information regarding federal actions that impact Denver under the new administration."
Fuja argued, "The City retention schedule does not obligate city employees to retain electronic mail messages."
KCNC reported that the city confirmed Signal messages were set to auto-delete from January 15 to January 29, after which the feature was disabled.
The decision to move the communication to Signal came just weeks after America First Legal requested that Johnston's administration turn over communications related to immigration issues.
AFL demanded "all records, including communications, calendar entries, and documents mentioning or belonging to Mike Johnston, Mayor since November 1, 2024."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Boston mayor drops $650,000 preparing for sanctuary city hearing: 'Stakes are high'
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) admitted to spending $650,000 in legal fees to prepare her for last week's congressional oversight hearing on sanctuary city policies.
During the six-hour committee hearing on March 5, lawmakers grilled Wu, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D), Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D), and New York Mayor Eric Adams (D) over their cities' sanctuary laws.
'Do we need to spend $650,000 of taxpayer funds on a show trial hearing?'
A spokesperson for Wu's office confirmed that the city "expects to pay" up to $650,000 to a law firm for preparation sessions that included the mayor's senior advisers, Cabinet leaders, law department, and Boston Police. For an additional $8,500, Wu brought dozens of her staff members to Washington, D.C., the Boston Herald reported.
Wu's office noted that Cahill Gordon & Reindel, an external law firm, charged the city $950 per hour.
A spokesperson for the legal firm told Boston.com that it "is pleased to represent Mayor Michelle Wu and the city of Boston in this congressional investigation."
During a Tuesday interview on GBH's Boston Public Radio, Wu defended her decision amid scrutiny over the massive legal bill.
She called the committee's investigation "extremely serious."
"As much as it can seem like a sort of show or production when you're watching it, Congress has power, and people who are in the federal government have real power to enact consequences, whether that's on federal funding or whether that is to follow through with some of the threats around prosecution of individual people or the referral to the Department of Justice," Wu said.
"It is money that I very, very much wish we did not have to spend at all, and time from my staff and team that could have gone to much better, much more important things. But, the stakes are high," she stated. "We're still continuing with the document production that has been formally requested."
Wu vowed to continue providing the committee with the requested materials.
"When there was threats to put me in jail, to take away funding, I needed to make sure that I was doing everything possible to represent our city well, to represent the policies with complete accuracy, and having legal representation was a necessary part of that," Wu added.
Josh Kraft, a Democratic mayoral challenger, bashed Wu for spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal preparation.
He stated, "Mayor Wu said she's going to DC to defend the city, and I support this. My question is: do we need to spend $650,000 of taxpayer funds on a show trial hearing?"
Kraft told WCVB, "I understand the preparation, but in a time when the city is becoming more and more fiscally vulnerable, I think $650,000 in preparation is a lot of money. If it was me, I would've looked at other more cost-effective measures to prepare for the testimony in D.C., and in addition, I know 12 folks from city hall accompanied the mayor there. I would leave at least probably two-thirds or more back to be in city hall to be responsive to the citizens of Boston."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Sanctuary mayors face DOJ criminal referral for allegedly harboring illegal aliens
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced Wednesday her plans to refer several sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation, accusing them of harboring illegal aliens.
Luna shared the announcement during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s hearing with Democratic Mayors Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, Mike Johnston of Denver, and Eric Adams of New York City. The hearing was held as part of the committee’s investigation into the impact of sanctuary city policies.
'I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations.'
She opened her remarks by questioning Wu, Johnson, and Johnston about their cities’ sanctuary policies. She did not pose any questions to Adams, who has agreed to work with President Donald Trump, border czar Tom Homan, and the rest of the administration to address New York City’s illegal immigration crisis.
“After this line of questioning, it’s very clear that these policies, that you will have all implicated are active and alive and well in your cities, are in direct violation with U.S. Title 8 code, subsection 1324, and is a federal offense,” Luna told the mayors.
“But you all speak about a broken immigration system, and yet here you guys are aiding and abetting in that entire process,” she continued. “I want to be very clear about something: Open border policies, which is something that you guys are talking about, hurts people on both sides, meaning the people that are coming here illegally and then American citizens as well.”
Luna stated that she does not believe the Democratic mayors “are bad people” but instead that they are “ideologically misled.”
“Unfortunately, based on your responses, I’m ... going to be criminally referring you to the Department of Justice for investigation, and as soon as I leave here, these will be going over to Pam Bondi,” Luna declared, as she held up three apparent DOJ referrals, potentially indicating she may have excluded Adams from the scrutiny.
Several media reports stated that Luna referred all four sanctuary mayors; however, it remains unclear from her direct statements whether Adams was included.
Luna noted that the referrals were not intended to “bully” the mayors.
“But I do believe that your policies are hurting the American people, and you can make that known with the evidence that you could present to the Department of Justice. But if you guys continue doing what you’re doing, you’re not going to help anyone. You’re going to hurt more people, and that’s exactly why I’m tired of it. The American people are tired of it,” she concluded.
Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) used the remainder of Luna’s yielded time to question Adams about the financial impact the influx of illegal aliens has had on New York City.
Adams explained that city taxpayers have shelled out roughly $6.9 billion in response to the immigration crisis.
“The long-term impact of that is extremely significant,” Adams replied.
After the hearing, Luna wrote in a post on X, “I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations based on evidence from their own comments and policies, proving that they were breaking federal law.”
“Open borders ideologies hurt people on both sides. If you hold federal office and are breaking the law, you’ll be criminally investigated by the DOJ,” she added.
The DOJ and the mayors' offices did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump's DOJ sues Chicago over sanctuary city laws 'thwarting' ICE
President Donald Trump's Department of Justice has ramped up its efforts to dismantle sanctuary laws by filing a lawsuit on Thursday against Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago that alleges their policies "impede" federal immigration enforcement.
The complaint also named Governor J.B. Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, and other local officials.
'The conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws ... has resulted in countless criminals being released.'
Specifically, the DOJ accused the Illinois TRUST Act, the Chicago Welcoming City ordinance, and the Way Forward Act of hindering Immigration and Customs Enforcement's efforts to detain and deport illegal aliens.
The Illinois TRUST Act, signed into law in 2017, says, "State law does not currently grant State or local law enforcement the authority to enforce federal civil immigration laws." It includes a "prohibition on enforcing federal civil immigration laws."
"A law enforcement agency or law enforcement official shall not detain or continue to detain any individual solely on the basis of any immigration detainer or civil immigration warrant or otherwise comply with an immigration detainer or civil immigration warrant," it reads.
Chicago's Welcoming City ordinance was passed in 2012 by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D).
The ordinance states that city agencies and agents cannot "arrest, detain, or continue to detain a person solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States."
Both laws prevent local jurisdictions from honoring ICE detainers, which request that a criminal illegal alien currently in local custody be held up to 48 hours beyond their release date to allow immigration officials to safely transfer the individual to federal custody.
The Way Forward Act was enacted in 2021 and amended the TRUST Act to provide additional protection to illegal aliens. It states that "a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official may not inquire about or investigate the citizenship or immigration status or place of birth of any individual in the agency or official's custody or who has otherwise been stopped or detained by the agency or official."
The DOJ's lawsuit claimed that the state and local laws are "designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."
The agency further stated that the policies "obstruct the Federal Government's enforcement of federal immigration law" and "impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe."
It continued, "Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States."
The complaint accused sanctuary jurisdictions of effectively being "safe havens" for criminal illegal aliens seeking to evade federal law enforcement agents.
It argued that the laws prevent ICE and the Department of Homeland Security from identifying illegal aliens who are subject to removal by restricting the information local governments can share with federal agents. The DOJ contended that such local laws contradict federal laws that "prohibit state and local governments from refusing to share information."
A DOJ official told the New York Post that the administration's immigration enforcement effort includes "an all-hands-on-deck approach," noting that the lawsuit is "one tool in our tool belt."
"This lawsuit will put the spotlight on obstruction by state and local officials and their refusal to support the administration and compliance with the law. The law says people who are here illegally are not allowed to stay here; they should be deported. So we want to make sure those impediments are taken away," the official told the news outlet.
"These states and localities advertise themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions. They are inviting people here who are illegal, and they're promising to protect them from federal law enforcement," the official continued. "That's inconsistent with federal law, and it's impeding federal law enforcement efforts, and these laws need to be struck from the books because they're incentivizing illegal immigration into the country."
The DOJ anticipates that the lawsuit may go all the way to the Supreme Court, the official added.
During Attorney General Pam Bondi's first day on the job, she directed the DOJ to halt federal funding to sanctuary cities.
The DOJ official told the Post that it was "no coincidence" that the lawsuit was filed shortly after Bondi's swearing-in.
"She is right out of the gate sending a clear message to other sanctuary jurisdictions," the official stated.
Pritzker's office responded to the lawsuit, stating, “Unlike Donald Trump, Illinois follows the law. The bipartisan Illinois TRUST Act, signed into law by a Republican governor, has always been compliant with federal law and still is today. Illinois will defend our laws that prioritize police resources for fighting crime while enabling state law enforcement to assist with arresting violent criminals. Instead of working with us to support law enforcement, the Trump administration is making it more difficult to protect the public, just like they did when Trump pardoned the convicted January 6 violent criminals. We look forward to seeing them in court.”
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle stated that the county plans to “fight back.”
“We will pursue every legal opportunity to defend the programs that we believe in and defend our values,” Preckwinkle said.
Johnson’s office did not respond to requests for comment from The Hill or Newsweek.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Chicago Dems devolve into civil war over sanctuary laws shielding illegal aliens
The Chicago City Council devolved into a civil war on Wednesday after Democratic members voted against a proposal from two of their colleagues to roll back the city's sanctuary laws.
Democratic aldermen Raymond Lopez and Silvana Tabares introduced an amendment to Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance that would have allowed the Chicago Police Department to cooperate with federal immigration agents when illegal aliens have been arrested or convicted of certain crimes.
'They profit on fear.'
Under the current ordinance, city officials are prohibited from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in any enforcement situation.
The proposal would have granted local officials the ability to cooperate with ICE when an illegal alien is arrested or convicted of sexual crimes involving a minor or gang, drug, and prostitution-related activities.
The above carve-outs proposed by the aldermen were previously removed under former Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D).
Wednesday's city council meeting was packed with residents who came out to voice support for both sides of the issue.
During the meeting's rowdy public comment period, a man who referred to himself as "the Chicago Conservative" spoke in support of removing sanctuary protections for illegal aliens.
During the previous speaker's comments and while the Chicago Conservative walked toward the microphone, Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) could be seen away from his seat, having a side conversation.
"Good morning, Brandon Johnson," the Chicago Conservative said. "I'm going to start off with this question: Who are you loyal to, the American citizens here in Chicago or the illegal immigrants here in Chicago?"
His comments received boos and jeers from some residents in the chamber.
"The sanctuary law that Brandon Johnson allowed has drawn criminals, drug dealers, and now terrorists — we have terrorists in our city now. Some here in city hall as we speak," the Chicago Conservative continued.
Johnson returned to his seat to address the audience uproar and restore order to the chamber, briefly pausing the Chicago Conservative's speech to issue a warning to those being disruptive.
"The Democratic Party cannot save us. Only God can save us," the Chicago Conservative added.
During the meeting, the city council voted 39-11 to dismiss the Democratic aldermen's proposal.
Lopez and Tabares may have an opportunity to pass the proposal during a future meeting. However, it would require 34 votes to approve, and Johnson, who has been a staunch supporter of the city's sanctuary status, would undoubtedly move to veto it.
Johnson applauded the city council for rejecting the amendment.
"Our job is to make sure that people are protected and safe. That is the top priority of any government, and that's what we're going to do," Johnson stated. "The fear that has found its way in the city of Chicago, because of the threats that are coming from the incoming administration, the people of Chicago can rest assured that the full force of government will do everything in its power to protect the residents of this city."
Tabares responded to the vote, saying, "These immigrant advocates, they don't want to solve the problem."
"It fuels their narrative and capacity to fundraise, and so they profit on fear," she added.
Lopez claimed, "All of this is just political theater for them to have a boogeyman to point at the next four years."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
City sues California over sanctuary law fueling violent crime spike: 'Clear and present danger'
The City of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against California, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), and state Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) over the state's sanctuary law that shields illegal aliens from federal immigration authorities.
The lawsuit argued that California Senate Bill 54, signed into law by former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in 2017, is "unconstitutional" and prohibits local jurisdictions from complying with federal immigration laws.
'Huntington Beach will not sit idly by and allow the obstructionist Sanctuary State Law to put our 200,000 residents at risk of harm from those who seek to commit violent crimes on US soil.'
"California's Sanctuary State Law not only limits the ability of City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to engage in fullest of effective law enforcement practices, but it directs City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws," the complaint read.
The lawsuit attributes the rise in violent crime and the increased presence of illegal alien gang members in the United States to sanctuary policies, arguing that SB 54 "is a clear and present danger to the health, safety, and welfare" of residents. It noted that crime has been rising in California since 2018, the same year the sanctuary law went into effect.
SB 54 prohibits local law enforcement agencies from transferring illegal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. It also bans them from notifying ICE about inmate release dates.
Such policies force federal immigration agents to locate and detain illegal aliens after they have been released back onto the streets. This approach is both costlier and far more dangerous than allowing ICE agents to enter the local jails to transfer inmates to federal custody.
President-elect Donald Trump's previous administration sued California over its sanctuary law in 2018; however, it was struck down in court.
Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns stated, "We are fighting the Sanctuary State Law because it obstructs our ability to fully enforce the law and keep our community safe."
"When the stakes are currently so high, with reports of increases in human trafficking, increases in foreign gangs taking over apartment buildings in the U.S., killing, raping, and committing other violent crimes against our citizens, we need every possible resource available to fight crime, including federal resources," he continued. "Huntington Beach will not sit idly by and allow the obstructionist Sanctuary State Law to put our 200,000 residents at risk of harm from those who seek to commit violent crimes on U.S. soil."
City attorney Michael Gates called Huntington Beach's lawsuit "incredibly strong," claiming that California's sanctuary law "violates the Supremacy and Naturalization Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, forces our City officials to violate federal immigration laws under 8 U.S. Code, Sections 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S. Code, Sections 371 and 372."
"It is unfortunate that we have to fight the State of California in order to achieve sound and effective law enforcement policies. We will continue to fight for the safety of our community relentlessly and with vigor," Gates added.
A spokesperson for Bonta's office told the Voice of OC, "The Attorney General is committed to protecting and ensuring the rights of California's immigrant communities and upholding vital laws like SB 54."
"Our office successfully fought back against a challenge to SB 54 by the first Trump administration, and we are prepared to vigorously defend SB 54 again," the spokesperson said.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Gov. Healey orders sweep of Massachusetts shelters after illegal alien allegedly caught with drugs, gun
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) announced on Monday inspections of all state-run emergency shelters after an illegal alien was allegedly found with a large stash of drugs and a rifle.
The Revere Police Department stated that in late December, 28-year-old Leonardo Andujar Sanchez was arrested with a loaded AR-15 and roughly 10 pounds of fentanyl — worth more than $1 million — in his possession.
'Broken federal immigration system.'
Sanchez, a Dominican national who entered the U.S. illegally, was apprehended at a Quality Inn, one of the 128 hotels in the state currently operating as a shelter for migrants.
Chief David J. Callahan stated, "This individual endangered occupants of the hotel, on-site workers, public safety personnel and the community at large. His arrest underscores our commitment to work tirelessly to protect our community from those dealing deadly Fentanyl and possessing illegal firearms."
Immigration and Customs Enforcement lodged a detainer request against Sanchez. He is currently in state custody and is expected to be transferred to ICE upon his release, according to the New York Post.
Following Sanchez's arrest and backlash from the Massachusetts House Republican Caucus, Healey declared that the state would conduct sweeps of its shelters.
"It's outrageous that this individual took advantage of our shelter system to engage in criminal activity," Healey said. "I've ordered an inspection of all shelter units, beginning with the Revere site, and a full review of our intake processes to determine any additional steps that we can take to prevent criminal activity in shelters."
Members of the caucus wrote a letter to Healey expressing their "deep concerns" about the recent arrest, calling the situation "outrageous and totally unacceptable."
"How is it possible an undocumented immigrant here illegally is receiving a benefit of emergency family shelter even though our laws do not allow it? How is it this individual wasn't flagged in a so-called comprehensive background check upon application for shelter?" the letter read.
"Sadly, despite background checks, this is not an isolated incident, as there have been other reported instances of serious crimes committed by individuals residing in these shelters, including one case involving a 26-year-old Haitian national who was taken into custody by ICE as an unlawfully present migrant after being charged with the aggravated rape of a child in a migrant shelter in Rockland," the letter added.
Healey deflected blame for the alleged public safety threat posed by Sanchez, instead pointing fingers at the Biden administration and its "inaction" on the immigration crisis.
"This further underscores our broken federal immigration system and the urgent need for Congress and the White House to act on a border security bill to prevent criminals from entering our communities," Healey remarked.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Blaze News original: San Diego County's 'super' sanctuary vote reveals deep divides within community
As the United States prepares for a new presidential administration focused on mass deportations, leaders in San Diego County have chosen to defy these plans by passing a controversial policy that fortifies and expands sanctuary protections for illegal aliens. This decision has ignited a fierce backlash from both local law enforcement and residents.
Following President-elect Donald Trump's election victory in November, many liberal leaders vowed to stand in the way of his administration's mass deportation efforts.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) pledged to "Trump-proof" the state by pushing through bills that would serve as roadblocks to the incoming administration. Newsom has also ensured that Attorney General Rob Bonta has the funds to sue the administration. During Trump's first term, California filed more than 100 lawsuits against him.
In later November, the Los Angeles City Council rushed to pass a "sanctuary city" ordinance to send "a very clear message" that the city refuses to "cooperate with ICE in any way," according to council member Hugo Soto-Martinez (D). The measure passed unanimously.
San Diego County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Nora Vargas introduced a similar measure following Trump's victory.
On December 10, the board approved Vargas' proposal to double down on the county's sanctuary status. Despite the board's 3-1 vote, the public remained deeply divided on the issue.
Public comments
More than 100 residents signed up to speak on Vargas' proposed policy, listed as Item 29, "adopting a board policy on immigration enforcement to enhance community safety." Further, the policy received more than 500 electronic comments.
‘You guys are protecting child sex traffickers.’
Leading into the public comments, Vargas warned that some residents and even fellow board members would likely share "a lot of misinformation" about her proposal.
Residents advocating for the policy — several of whom introduced themselves by their pronouns — argued that county resources should not be used to aid the federal government with mass deportations. Numerous individuals expressed concerns about family separation and possible human rights abuses. Others contended that failing to pass the measure might undermine the community's trust in local law enforcement.
Reverend Lenny Duncan told the board of supervisors that he supported the policy.
"As a Christian, I'm taught that Jesus has to run from political violence to Egypt. It's actually part of the story, Councilman [Jim] Desmond," Duncan stated, addressing the sole Republican supervisor present at the meeting. "We need to vote 'yes' on this and continue to be a Madisonian democracy. Maybe the slim majority of Americans wanted this, but the majority of Californians don't."
As Duncan stepped away from the microphone, a resident in the crowd corrected him, shouting, "It's a constitutional republic."
Robert Hicks, the assistant regional director for the Anti-Defamation League's San Diego branch, also voiced support for the measure on behalf of the organization.
"Immigrants and refugees are an integral part of our San Diego community. We are grateful that the county has decided to advance protections for immigrants that will keep families together and ensure immigrants are treated with humanity, dignity, and respect," Hicks told the board.
Multiple individuals in support of the measure seemed to repeat a near-identical phrase claiming that the San Diego County Sheriff's Office has been using local resources to assist federal immigration officials with deportation efforts.
The board of supervisors abruptly called for a recess when a male resident started shouting over a speaker who had just regurgitated the same line.
Upon reconvening after the recess, the county proceeded to hear from residents opposed to the measure.
While one local was speaking, another resident held up a thick stack of papers, flipping through what appeared to be headlines documenting crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens.
"Man who shot at California cop previously deported, arrested but cops wouldn't honor ICE detainer, feds say," one paper read.
"Illegal immigrant accused of raping 13-year-old at knifepoint," another stated.
‘The Sheriff's Office does not coordinate with, nor will it delay an individual's release to accommodate immigration officials.’
Eli Komai, a San Diego resident, called Vargas' policy "toothless."
"I'd like to make you aware of why these immigrants are coming to the United States in the first place. They're seeking out a homeland that has more law and order; that is safer, is not run by gangsters or cartels, or communists," Komai stated.
"If you cross in here illegally, you're a criminal," he remarked.
Intermittent disruptions from the audience prompted Vargas to order everyone to clear the chamber as the board concluded the public comment section by listening to those who had called in remotely.
Resident Natalie Hayes openly criticized the numerous religious leaders who had spoken during the meeting in favor of the measure.
"You guys are protecting child sex traffickers," Hayes stated. "I don't hear you out here speaking for them, veterans, or any American children that are also being affected by what's coming into this border."
The vote
Vargas argued that her policy aligned with state legislation passed under former Gov. Jerry Brown (D). She specifically mentioned Brown's California Assembly Bill 4, which prevents local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests, and California Senate Bill 54, which prohibits the transfer of illegal immigrants to ICE custody and forbids notifying the federal agency about inmate release dates.
Vargas' policy read, "Today's actions will adopt a resolution and Board Policy L-2 to affirm the County shall not provide assistance or cooperation to ICE in its civil immigration enforcement efforts, including by giving ICE agents access to individuals or allowing them to use County facilities for investigative interviews or other purposes, expending County time or resources responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding individuals' incarceration status or release dates, or otherwise participating in any civil immigration enforcement activities."
The policy forces county officials to obtain a warrant signed by a state or federal judge to communicate with ICE.
Ahead of the vote, Desmond voiced his concerns about the measure.
‘California's policymakers are more focused on “Trump-proofing” the state than addressing the needs of everyday Californians.’
Desmond argued that the policy went "beyond California's existing sanctuary laws by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy that hinders local law enforcement from directly notifying ICE about illegal immigrants who are currently in our jails, and they have committed heinous crimes."
He noted that such crimes included "child abuse or endangerment, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs — but only if this conviction is for a felony — possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, gang-related offenses, a crime resulting in death or involving personal affliction or great bodily injury, possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense, torture, rape, and kidnapping."
Desmond's objections were disregarded, and the rest of the board voted to pass the policy.
In an unexpected turn of events, the San Diego County Sheriff's Office quickly released a statement announcing its refusal to adhere to the newly passed policy.
The sheriff's office argued that the board of supervisors does not have the authority to set its policy.
"The sheriff, as an independently elected official, sets the policy for the Sheriff's Office. California law prohibits the board of supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the sheriff, and is clear that the sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate the county jails," the statement read. "The Sheriff's Office will not change its practices based on the board resolution and policy that was passed at today's meeting."
Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez, a Democrat, also released a statement regarding the office's decision not to comply with the board's measure.
"As the sheriff of San Diego County, my number-one priority is protecting the safety and well-being of all residents of our diverse region. While protecting the rights of undocumented immigrants is crucial, it is equally important to ensure that victims of crimes are not overlooked or neglected in the process. Victims include undocumented individuals — these vulnerable individuals express to me that their legal status is used as a weapon against them when offenders from their community victimize them," Martinez wrote.
In a statement to Blaze News, the sheriff's office confirmed that it "will not be expanding or changing anything we have been doing."
"We will continue to follow state law and maintain the way we have been operating for several years. The Board Action sought to impose restrictions well beyond those already provided for in-state law regarding how local law enforcement can work with immigration officials."
A spokesperson explained that the sheriff's office believes the "current state law strikes the right balance between limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with immigration authorities, ensuring public safety, and building community trust."
‘There was really no listening to the voice of the people.’
In response to residents' allegations about the use of county resources to assist federal immigration officials, the spokesperson provided clarity on the specific situations in which the sheriff's office can lawfully communicate with ICE.
"State law allows for the Sheriff's Office to share release dates for individuals who are in Sheriff's custody only if they have qualifying convictions for specific serious, violent, or sex crimes," the spokesperson said. "If an individual has a qualifying conviction, state law authorizes local law enforcement to notify immigration authorities of that person's release date. Immigration officials decide whether they will be present when the individual is released from custody."
"The Sheriff's Office does not coordinate with, nor will it delay an individual's release to accommodate immigration officials," the office remarked, referring to ICE's detainers, which request local law enforcement hold individuals up to 48 hours after their scheduled release date.
The sheriff's office told Blaze News that it has no plans to seek legal action against the county over the policy.
Community response
Following the sheriff's announcement, Komai told Blaze News, "I am relieved that Sheriff Martinez and her staff are aware of state law and aren't so easily hoodwinked, they must have plenty of experience dealing with false pretenses!"
Komai continued, "The aspect of the resolution that demands the greatest clarity is how it has no bearing whatsoever on state law, even though it 'claims' to fly in the face of it. The board, their staff, and many members of the public (including those in the Americanist cause) seem to misunderstand state law. The California state constitution creates the office of the sheriff. Sheriffs are elected independently of County Supervisors and retain their autonomy under the California state law."
Desmond also told Blaze News that he felt relieved by the sheriff's office's refusal to adhere to the new policy. Nevertheless, the vote highlighted how disconnected lawmakers are from their constituents, he pointed out.
"California's policymakers are more focused on 'Trump-proofing' the state than addressing the needs of everyday Californians. They're rolling out the red carpet with free benefits like health care and in-state tuition for those here illegally, while also providing $5 million for legal defense fees," he stated.
"Yesterday's vote is part of that radical agenda. Ending ICE coordination on serious crimes like rape, child abuse, and gang violence leaves our communities vulnerable," Desmond continued. "This isn't just a theoretical issue. Last year in San Diego County, there were 25 ICE transfers involving crimes like kidnapping, burglary, and DUI. Thanks to coordination between local law enforcement and ICE, those dangerous individuals could be deported."
Homan has called Vargas' policy '10 times worse.'
He stated that his constituents are grateful to him "for being the lone 'no' vote and for standing up for common sense in an increasingly radical political environment." However, he noted that residents are profoundly worried about the impacts the policy will have on the safety of their community.
"The message I'm hearing is clear: San Diegans want leadership that prioritizes public safety over partisan politics," Desmond declared.
Kim Yeater, a San Diego County resident and co-founder of the Take Our Border Back alliance, told Blaze News that she felt the decision to pass the policy was determined before locals had a chance to share their thoughts with the board of supervisors.
"It was almost as if the decision was already made. So there was really no listening to the voice of the people," she stated. "I'm really shocked, but I'm not surprised."
Yeater voiced concerns over how open border policies are fueling the fentanyl crisis and allowing unvetted, violent gang members to enter the country. She labeled the situation a "national security breach" and warned that residents might be "putting way too much trust in the people we've elected."
"We, the people, have got to stand up and come together and show up because it's the only way we can hold these elected officials accountable to do the work that we have hired them to do," Yeater said.
Trump's incoming border czar, Tom Homan, has pledged to bring the hammer down on sanctuary jurisdictions like San Diego County. Homan vowed to accomplish Trump's mass deportation mission with or without help from local politicians, noting that Democratic leaders' refusal to cooperate with ICE would only lead to more federal immigration officers on the ground in their communities.
Homan has called Vargas' policy "10 times worse" than the state's existing sanctuary laws.
The San Diego Sector has emerged as one of the most heavily trafficked sections of the southern border. In fiscal year 2024, the sector saw a 40% increase in encounters compared to the previous year, which experienced a 31% rise from fiscal year 2022.
El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells (R) has consistently raised concerns regarding the effects of the Biden administration's immigration crisis on the county.
Wells said in a statement to Blaze News, "The feds cannot ignore the lawless decrees of the San Diego Board of Supervisors. If they do, they will be sanctioning anarchy. I don't see President Trump and Tom Homan allowing Nora Vargas to circumvent the will of the American people. Public safety is not a game, and elected officials should not play with lives for political stunts."
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories