Alayna Shulman

Redding (Calif.) Record Searchlight

REDDING, Calif. — The California backlash to President Trump’s immigration policy ends somewhere north of Sacramento.

Supervisors in two counties have voted to make their views clear: They are not a “sanctuary.”

Tehama County’s board of supervisors narrowly passed a resolution on the issue earlier this month that may be the first of its kind in California. Up on the Oregon border, Siskiyou County quickly followed suit with a resolution approved Tuesday. And the county between them, Shasta, is likely to consider the same.

These counties didn’t just buck the California trend of standing up to Trump by declaring local sanctuary status — or even revoke that status as Florida’s Miami-Dade County did earlier this month.

They went out of the way to formally vote they were never sanctuaries to begin with.

With Tehama leading and others following, “I’m sure you’re going to see a whole bunch fall right in line,” said Republican state Rep. Doug LaMalfa of Richvale, likening the non-sanctuary resolutions to the ongoing effort to gain independent statehood for this conservative region.

California could become a sanctuary state. What that means

Police divided over Trump's 'sanctuary city' order

Local politicians said they weren’t familiar with any other California counties that had taken non-sanctuary votes, and several immigrant-rights organizations interviewed by the Record Searchlight said the same.

Other California jurisdictions, including Fresno, have unofficially said they’re not sanctuaries. And Tuesday, the City Council in Salinas narrowly turned down a proposal to declare sanctuary status. But outright non-sanctuary resolutions are a potential first.

“Very few jurisdictions are passing resolutions with this kind of language. In fact, the momentum is entirely in the other direction,” said Angélica Salceda, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. “A number of California counties have reaffirmed or passed new policies that promote fair policing and keep immigrant communities safer, and that number keeps growing.”

The supervisor who introduced Tehama’s resolution said it’s about money.

Citing fears that the county would lose crucial federal funds because of Trump’s executive order to punish sanctuary jurisdictions, Supervisor Bob Williams introduced his resolution after finding out that Tehama had been included on a conservative political action committee’s sanctuary list.

Some lists consider all California counties sanctuaries, but the Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC specifically naming Tehama County — and not others — seemed odd. While agriculture is a leading industry here and the population is 24% Hispanic, Trump won a resounding 65% of the presidential vote.

Williams believes the misunderstanding about Tehama’s stance on illegal immigration stems from capacity releases at the jail.

Like many tough-on-crime rural counties, Tehama has struggled to keep its criminals locked up on a tight budget. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can ask local jails to hold someone for them, it’s only mandatory if they actually get a warrant. That means a crammed jail can cause deputies to release undocumented immigrants.

“We didn’t even know we were a sanctuary county,” Williams said. “We don’t have any room at the jail. We’re full of felons, and so we can’t hold somebody on a minor offense just because they’re an illegal alien.”

Not every jurisdiction in the area is rushing into the fray.

Redding, the region’s hub city, never got on the PAC’s sanctuary list — probably because the county, not city, runs the local jail and deals with federal immigration officials. And since the city never declared sanctuary status, City Manager Kurt Starman said “there is no need for a resolution.”

But Tehama County Supervisor Les Baugh says there is. And it’s about more than the money. There isn’t “anything logical or acceptable” in flouting federal law, he said.

“We are certainly not a sanctuary county, and I think it’s important that we differentiate ourselves from California’s movement (toward that),” Baugh said. “California seems intent on running headlong into a legal battle with the federal government, and that doesn’t make any sense.”

But Salceda said plenty of other jurisdictions that offer “sanctuary” are using federal law to support their position.

“Trump may hope that cities and counties buckle under his threat, but local government and law enforcement officials have been preparing to defend their policies on how best to protect public safety in their communities,” she said.

Resolutions like Tehama’s can alienate people based on their race or legal-immigrant status, and cooperation with federal officials can open local jurisdictions up to liability, other immigration advocates argue.

“I think it is concerning, because it sends a message to immigrants and immigrant families that they might not be welcome in that particular place,” National Immigration Law Center Senior Staff Attorney Shiu-Ming Cheer said. “The other reason we’ve been seeing so many places in California issue pro-immigrant statements or resolutions is because they recognize that that tends to be better overall for their particular area, both economically but also socially.”

And Laura Vazquez, program manager for immigration at National Council of La Raza in Washington, D.C., said some counties actually see sanctuary policies as legal protection from being named in lawsuits centering on ICE detainers.

“Counties are saying, ‘We’re going to be on the hook for these practices, not federal agents who are requesting us to hold individuals,’” she said.

Two Tehama supervisors abstained from the vote, with one, Candy Carlson, saying the county would have to be “very, very careful” not to single people out by race, ethnicity or religion.

“I want to make very clear that that is not the intention of this board,” she said. “(It’s) looking at dollars that, right now, we probably could not function without.”

Williams rejected the idea that the resolution had anything to do with race, and said he doesn’t believe it will alienate constituents.

“Those who are held in custody are based on the severity of the crime, regardless of immigration status. This has nothing to do with legal immigrants or minorities who don't break the law,” he said. “It has everything to do with criminals, again, regardless of race.”

The new resolution may not be enough to get Tehama off the list, though.

Salvi, with the Ohio PAC, said he’ll wait for the county to “show me the numbers.” Plenty of other jurisdictions have asked to get off Salvi’s list since Trump announced his executive order, but he said intentions aren’t enough.

There’s no official government list of sanctuary jurisdictions, and “people are sending my list to the Trump administration,” Salvi said, and to John Kelly, the United States Department of Homeland Security secretary.

Some at Tehama County’s meeting voiced concern the resolution would — ironically — translate to punishment from immigration-friendly state politicians instead of federal ones. But Williams said it’s still important to declare the county’s dedication to federal law.

“You can worry about retaliation from Sacramento,” he said, “or you can worry about retaliation from Washington, D.C.”