California’s Resistance to Immigration Policy: The Effect of Donald Trump’s Approaching Inauguration
California’s Immigrant Policy Center in front of the Governor Building, courtesy of Brooke Anderson.
By Isaac Bernstein ‘28
On Monday, January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump will become the 47th President of the United States of America. Winning the popular vote against opponent Kamala Harris by 2,285,688 and the electoral college vote by 86, America has voted in the second president to ever serve two nonconsecutive terms. With this change in leadership and the significant polarization between the Republican and Democratic parties, states who firmly opposed President Trump are taking precautionary measures to ensure their beliefs and desired policies are not ignored. Namely, California has taken active policy steps to ensure that they do not dissuade their increasing immigrant population from entering and inhabiting the state.
On December 10th, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors passed a policy to limit the availability of resources used toward immigration investigations and federal immigration enforcement; this vote passed by a 3 to 1 margin. This change occurred after Donald Trump pledged to implement the largest mass deportation program in United States history and reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” program, one that requires those from Mexico seeking asylum to remain there until their U.S. court date.
Moreover, Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar selection and the former I.C.E. Director from 2017 to 2018, vowed to conduct mass deportations and send twice the current amount of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to Los Angeles. President Trump announced Homan’s selection in a publication on Truth Social, his social media forum created in February 2022, after facing bans from Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and other social media forums.
Support for the San Diego Policy
Board Chairwoman Nora Vargas spoke for those in favor of the San Diego policy by sharing their beliefs: “Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and our county will not be a tool for policies that hurt our residents.” Supporters feel that because a high proportion of their population identifies as immigrants, local organizations have a responsibility to allocate their resources toward the county’s more pressing matters such as food insecurity, homelessness, and poverty.
This majority opinion was also separately endorsed by the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, the most prominent immigrant organization in the city. The group’s mission statement is to “bring together more than 50 diverse organizations across San Diego County that advocate for policies that advance the civil and human rights of immigrants and refugees.
Board Chairman Jim Desmond voiced the position of the policy’s opponents, stating that “the Board of Supervisors’ 3-1 vote to embrace this radical policy is a direct betrayal of the people we are sworn to protect.” This opposing side believes that the U.S. Border Control, Department of Homeland Security, and other federal organizations who have immigration under their jurisdiction should be aided by San Diego and all other cities possible. Moreover, they express a desire for local police departments in specific areas, such as San Diego, to embrace their responsibility to assist in larger scale investigations and examinations.
It is important to note that San Diego is not the only city in California implementing immigration policy prior to Inauguration Day. Assembly Budget Committee Chair and San Fernando Valley Assembly member Jesse Gabriel explained how he introduced two bills to set aside $25 million for state agencies and the Department of Justice to use the funds to “challenge any unconstitutional or unlawful federal actions that threaten California’s interests or values.” Moreover, Jim McDonnell, current Los Angeles Police Department chief as of November 8th, told the Associated Press that he will implement preventative measures to avoid officers getting involved in federal immigration enforcement.
Immigration policy is not a newly discussed topic in the United States, nor is it limited to just California. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston took a strong stance against the immigration policies proposed by the Trump Administration, as he promised the city that he would prevent ICE from operating in any portion of Denver, even stating on the record that he would be willing to be imprisoned for his acts of resistance if it meant preventing the officer’s entrance. Additionally, recent immigration law Supreme Court cases, including Barton v. Barr (2020), Arizona v. Biden (2022), and Department of State v. Muñoz (2024), examine restrictions and limits to immigration rights and state power. These Supreme Court immigration cases, and legal precedents, are crucial for understanding the logic behind state resistance to federal immigration enforcement.
Recent Precedent and Contextualization of United States Supreme Court Rulings on Immigration
In April 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against Andre Barton (long-term permanent United States resident originally from Jamaica) via a 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr. This close ruling harshened immigration law policies, so that even long-term residents of the United States for over seven years could still be deported from the nation if convicted of a criminal offense.
Two years later, the court decided Arizona v. Biden (2022), and even though an official statement with voting information was not published, Biden’s immigration policies to prioritize immigrants who posed a national security or border security threat over those already in residence in Arizona were adopted. This reprioritization had statewide effects, such as requiring proof of citizenship for voting registration in statewide elections in Arizona, but also had national effects like ruling that executive branch power from the President could override previously adopted immigration law policies. Thus, with President Trump’s second term about to begin, many worry that the executive power precedent set in this case could lead to a reversal of these democratic-leaning policies, and instead, a mass deportation in the Southwestern United States.
Most recently, in June 2024, the court stated through Department of State v. Muñoz that a U.S. citizen is not guaranteed to gain residency granted by the government to an immigrating spouse under liberty laws and immigration law policies. Further, this ruling solidified that the visa process was more difficult to obtain for the spouses, just as Sandra Muñoz experienced as a U.S. citizen when trying to obtain one for her husband.
California’s Resistance in a Broader Context
Coming at a pivotal time in immigration policy, California’s resistance ensues as the presence of executive branch power and additional immigration restrictions under the Republican-majority Supreme Court have been set.
Since President Trump vowed to address immigration law heavily and conduct the largest mass deportation in history during his second term of presidency, the resistance has spread to other aforementioned states and cities. With January 20th getting closer by the day, the intensity of the resistances continues to increase such protests from United States immigrants. Continuing to examine the development of immigration law and policies in the United States will yield relevant, impactful results for the future of immigrants in this country.