County’s Latino Affairs Commission pushes to turn symbolic immigration sanctuary pledge into binding law

➤ Para leer el artículo en español, haga clic aquí.

Santa Cruz County’s Latino Affairs Commission is preparing to push supervisors to put their informal support for the region’s immigrant community into law with a legally binding sanctuary ordinance that would prevent county workers from sharing information with federal agents or employing surveillance technology that can be used to track immigrants.

The board of supervisors passed a resolution in December reaffirming the county’s sanctuary status after President Donald Trump’s election to a second term. The resolution says county resources should not be used to enforce federal immigration laws or target residents based on their immigration status. 

While the resolution is a source of reassurance to the immigrant community, it lacks actual enforcement mechanisms as an ordinance would, said Emmanuel Nevarez, chair of the Latino Affairs Commission and a member of the Santa Cruz County Immigration Coalition, a collective of nonprofits and grassroots organizers who advocate for undocumented residents.  

“Reaffirming the sanctuary status is not enough,” he told Lookout. 

Commissioners recently drafted a letter to county officials asking them to consider creating a sanctuary ordinance to implement more safeguards for undocumented residents and prevent the county from entering into any agreements with surveillance technology companies like Flock Safety. The company has been criticized for sharing data collected by its automated license plate readers to immigration officials. 

While the county’s sanctuary resolution “is strong in symbolism and intent, it lacks enforceable mechanisms to ensure consistent implementation across departments,” the letter reads. “Without codification, the protections it promises remain vulnerable to administrative changes, misinterpretation, or uneven application.” The letter does not guarantee that county supervisors will take up the recommendation at a future meeting, Nevarez said; rather, it advocates that officials look into creating an ordinance. 

The commission was scheduled to vote on whether to send its recommendations to county officials on Oct. 1, but that meeting was canceled because of a lack of quorum. Nevarez said he expects the commission to raise the issue again at its next meeting, on Dec. 3. 

Earlier this summer, the Latino Affairs Commission also sent county elected officials a letter highlighting community concerns, including federal immigration agents using face masks, the use of automated license plate reader cameras and the need for increased funding to help support immigrant families, said Nevarez.

Nevarez said the commission will recommend that the board of supervisors look at a sanctuary city ordinance passed by the Huntington Park City Council in July that establishes “clear procedures that prohibit the use of city resources, personnel and facilities” for federal immigration enforcement purposes, unless required by law. 

Under Huntington Park’s ordinance, departments in the Southern California city are prohibited from cooperating with immigration enforcement activities, such as arrests by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that do not have a legal judicial warrant. It also protects residents’ personal information, which includes their immigration status, from being shared with federal agencies. 

A section in the ordinance also states that the City of Huntington Park will not enter or extend any contracts with entities or companies that might provide immigration officials with any information, including technology companies that gather information in a database.

That particular section of Huntington Park’s law stands out to Nevarez, who last month spoke in opposition to Watsonville’s extension of its contract with Flock Safety. He told Lookout that there needs to be a section in any future local ordinance that proactively addresses automated license plate readers in the county. 

“Flock makes the immigrant community, as well as the Latino community, feel very unsafe because it basically gives ICE access to that data, whether police think it or not,” Nevarez said. 

Concerns over the cameras have only continued to grow throughout Santa Cruz County, with residents, including Nevarez, citing media reports of law enforcement agencies in California — though not in Santa Cruz County — sharing license plate reader data with federal agencies like ICE. 

In addition, the commission hopes to highlight three areas that a potential ordinance can address, according to its draft letter. Nevarez added that at the Dec. 3 meeting, the commission will most likely add more things members would like to see in a local law and reference other jurisdictions that have adopted a sanctuary ordinance.  

For instance, an ordinance could require all county departments to regularly update their policies within a certain time frame and require staff to undergo training to ensure they understand how to apply the sanctuary protections. The county’s existing resolution only directs departments to review confidentiality policies, like not sharing personal data with outside agencies, and imposes no deadline for them to do so, according to the commission. 

An ordinance could also explicitly prohibit county workers and agencies from collecting details on someone’s immigration status —  the county and sheriff’s office already say they do not collect this information — bar them from sharing residents’ addresses with immigration officials, and require judicial warrants for ICE access. The existing resolution doesn’t include these provisions, the commission’s letter says. 

District 4 County Supervisor Felipe Hernandez told Lookout that he has yet to have any conversations with the Latino Affairs Commission about a potential sanctuary ordinance, but added that he’s open to the possibility of having one. 

Hernandez believes that the county’s existing resolution reaffirming its sanctuary status covers a lot of what the commission is advocating for; however, he’s still interested in taking a look at the commission’s ideas once they are shared with the board of supervisors, he said. 

He added he understands the growing community concerns about the use of Flock cameras, and has some of his own. While he sees that automated license plate readers have been a crucial tool used by law enforcement to solve crimes, Hernandez raised questions about what happens to the data that is collected. 

“Who has access to information?” Hernandez said. “They say that ICE won’t have access but part of the problem is that there’s agencies out there that can get information for ICE.” 

The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office does not have any contracts with companies like Flock Safety and has no plans to use the surveillance technology, said Hernandez. Once the commission sends its advocacy letter to the board, Hernandez said he’ll have a better understanding of what it is asking for, and potentially move forward with conversations with county staff on creating an ordinance. 

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.