San Mateo County ends ICE relationship

Many also offered strong words for Supervisor Ray Mueller who said he supports greatly limiting cooperation with ICE but proposed an amendment that would have allowed local law enforcement to assist with ICE transfers if the inmate committed an act of murder, rape or child molestation.

“Supervisor Mueller, your amendment stereotypes immigrants and is prejudicial. In my community, certain people already scare undocumented neighbors by telling them they will call the Migra on them,” said Rita Mancera, executive director of Puente, an organization in Mueller’s district providing services to both documents and undocumented coastside residents. “I expect that in the future you will reach out to us and the many other organizations that are dedicated to supporting immigrants in advance of votes such as this one so you can make informed decisions that affect our community. When you campaigned, you said you supported immigrants. Don’t change that now that you’re in office, please.”

Supervisors, during their April 11 meeting, voted 4-1 to approve an ordinance prohibiting all departments, agencies, governing bodies, representatives and employees from using county funds to cooperate with ICE requests, including providing agents with an inmate’s personal information or access to county facilities, unless the agency presents a warrant signed by a federal judge.

The ordinance — approved again this Tuesday in a 4-1 split — does not restrict the local ability to cooperate and assist with criminal investigations or other enforcement that does not relate to immigration enforcement. It also builds on a policy already adopted by the Sheriff’s Office first under former Sheriff Carlos Bolanos in 2021 and again by Sheriff Christina Corpus who reiterated her support of the ordinance when first discussed at the previous meeting.

The amendment

But Mueller argued that the difference between the department’s policy and the board’s ordinance was that the sheriff could use discretion when deciding whether to cooperate with ICE under its policy. Adding to his concern, he said, is data that show those who commit some of the most egregious types of crimes have higher rates of recidivism and could potentially reoffend or target their victims again once released.

He initially shared his concerns during the last meeting and decided to officially propose the amendments after meeting with immigrants from his district who he said were in support. While most of Tuesday’s public speakers endorsed the ordinance without amendments, some members of the public sided with Mueller and thanked him for what they said was an act of prioritizing victims over criminals.

“I want to acknowledge that this issue is deeply personal and an emotionally traumatic topic, that ICE has caused needless trauma on many which is why I do generally support the ordinance and the county not working with immigration officials in most cases except three, serious and violent felony rape, murder and child molestation,” Mueller said. “It is my opinion and the opinion of many in the district that I’ve spoken to that we should be doing everything we can to ensure we’re protecting our residents, both documented and undocumented, from violence and fear of reporting these crimes for fear of retribution upon a felon’s return.”

A sheriff having the discretion to decide whether to cooperate with federal immigration agents is what spurred the creation of the ordinance though. Once Bolanos decided to end the department’s relationship with ICE, members of the public implored the board to adopt a policy that would codify that decision, preventing a future sheriff from reinstating a relationship with federal agents.

Senate Bill 54, approved in 2017, already prohibits state and local agencies from using resources to comply with ICE requests but some exceptions could be made for individuals who have committed serious and violent crimes. Far more exceptions are included in the state legislation than in the amendment Mueller was proposing, he noted.

Mueller also argued that the process was rushed while the state held numerous meetings before approving its legislation. No notice was given before the ordinance was placed on the county agenda two weeks ago. But members of the public noted many have been lobbying for the change for years. Supervisors last November asked that staff draft such an ordinance during the county’s last Truth Act Forum, a state-mandated community meeting jurisdiction must hold if they assist with any ICE transfers.

During those forums and recent board meetings on the issue, residents, activists and experts argued that transfers to ICE are a form of double punishment that treat immigrants who commit crimes differently from citizens who do.

Had the board moved forward with Mueller’s amendment, some argued a majority of felons would still be released into the public given their status as citizens, shedding doubt on the efficacy of the amendment. Instead, many argued the county should address other areas known to reduce crime like the housing shortage, prison reform and reentry programs.

Board discussion

Like some residents, supervisors David Canepa and Noelia Corzo shared strong words for Mueller and his recommendation. Canepa said he lost respect for Mueller who he accused of “slap[ping] the face of 40 organizations that stand in solidarity to not vilify our immigrant community,” referencing a letter by Puente that was signed by multiple organizations asking the board to not support the amendment.

Canepa also called the proposal a “dog whistle.” He noted it gained support from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization he described as having ties to white supremacists and has been condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a legal nonprofit advocating for civil rights. The organization lobbies for reduced legal immigration, deterring illegal immigration, removal of those who enter the county without documentation and other immigration reforms.

“I’ve lost respect for you because you’re dividing the community, you’re dividing the Latino community as we speak,” Canepa said. “You’re dog-whistling and your dog whistling has had an adverse effect. … I’m disappointed in you, I’m disturbed by you, that you would use communities and divide them. It saddens me.”

Corzo, who comes from a mixed-status household and is a survivor of both domestic and sexual abuse, said she was disgusted by the proposal, which she said was xenophobic and weaponized victims’ experiences while dividing the community and enabling the spreading of misinformation about the connection between immigrants and crime.

“I want to name that I know that everyone here empathizes with victims of crime, some of us may be victims of crime and to exploit the pain of a handpicked few to push forward your agenda I think is irresponsible,” Corzo said. “The misinformation is dangerous. We’ve seen it become especially more dangerous after the past proposed amendments.”

Board Vice President Warren Slocum said he agreed with Canepa and Corzo and pushed back on assertions from Mueller that the rest of the board was attempting to ignore alternative perspectives. He also referenced how divisive the issue had become by noting his email in box and voicemail had been flooded with messages he said appeared to be from white supremacists, calling the messages “really hurtful.”

Board President Dave Pine, who co-sponsored the original ordinance with Canepa, said he didn’t agree with Mueller’s proposal but defended the District 3 supervisor by asserting he deeply cares about the county’s immigrant community.

Mueller thanked Pine for his support while noting people have the right to share their perspectives. He emphasized that he never meant to speak on behalf of an entire community. Instead, he said his aim was to lend his voice to a section of the population who felt unheard, a group of people he said are not racist but have a different point of view and are entitled to share their perspectives.

Though the meeting was tense at times, at different points supervisors shared hope the county and board can move forward to work together on pressing matters with Slocum suggesting the county hold a day of unity, a recommendation made by one of his staff members.

“To me, this has become a really divisive issue in the county,” Slocum said. “My hope for the future is that we can mend these fences, continue to work together to get things done for the community.”