Image
, 
, 
Mayor Snow presented proclamation to Roberto Alvarez, son of plaintiff in landmark legal case
By Karen Pearlman
Photo: mural artist Mario Chacon, by Christina Alvarez
April 1, 2025 (Lemon Grove) – Mario Chacon stood near the mural he painted three years ago with two assistants in Lemon Grove, and paused to give some thought on what the artwork represents.
The mural on the side of the building at 7963 Broadway depicts the story of one of the first historic successful public school desegregation cases in the United States.
Image
“It was remarkable to me that here in one generation they tried to deny access to education, to a whole generation of children,” Chacon said. “And then one generation later, the son of the litigant is now a professor at UC San Diego.”
Twenty-three years before the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case changed the trajectory of educational facilities and ended state-sponsored segregation, Mexican-American parents challenged the Lemon Grove School District’s attempt to segregate their children.
Image
Called “Roberto Alvarez v. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District,” the case is also referred to The Lemon Grove Incident.
Chacon’s artwork shows the grammar school at the center of the fight, and someone sending children to another school. Another part of the mural shares the names of all the schoolchildren who were involved in the case. There are depictions of newspapers telling the stories of the day, women in a packing house and a banner depicting the first farmworkers union.
There’s also a courtroom scene showing a student at a witness stand.
Chacon shared his thoughts on Sunday, March 30, where a crowd of nearly 100 people showed up at the site of the mural to celebrate the 94th anniversary of the event.
“I learned about the case many, many years ago when I was in college,” Chacon said. “It’s always been in the back of my mind this this this thing is practically forgotten, but so important.”
Lemon Grove Mayor Alysson Snow presented a proclamation to Alvarez’s son, Roberto Alvarez Jr., who is a researcher and director of the Center for Global California Studies at UC San Diego.
Alvarez Jr. shared the story of the litigation and spoke to the crowd about how other school desegregation cases came before (and have come since) The Lemon Grove Incident. He said he was proud of the legacy of his father, their classmates and the adults who spoke on their behalf and mentioned the principal at the time Jerome Green, who was eventually let go.
He said the name of every child who was involved in the legal case.
“They had that courage to stand up and fight back during a very, very vicious and violent period of time,” Alvarez said.
Photo, right by Karen Pearlman: Roberto Alvarez, son of the original plaintiff in the case ending segregation in the Lemon Grove School District, speaks to a crowd March 30 in front of artist Mario Chacon’s mural.
Roberto Alvarez Jr.’s father was in fifth grade at Lemon Grove Grammar School when he became the face of and the lead representative of the landmark case.
The senior Alvarez went on in 1950 to found Coast Citrus Distributors, a San Diego-headquartered wholesale fruit and vegetable business still operating in California, Texas, Florida and five locations in Mexico.
Grace Communion Lemon Grove church opens meeting space at mural site
Grace Communion Lemon Grove, a local church, hosted the event at its new home at the venue where Chacon’s mural is located.
Called “The Neighborhood,” GC Lemon Grove’s venue has meeting space and will host local events including book clubs, workshops, paining events, trivia and board game nights and more, seeking to help neighbors connect with neighbors.
Plans show the space will open later this summer.
GC Lemon Grove Pastor Anne Stapleton shared some thoughts about Alvarez and also plans for the site where the mural is located.
She mentioned how “The Neighborhood” was exactly the right name for the spot. Parents of the students who were involved in the court case in 1931 formed Comite de Vecinos de Lemon Grove – or the Lemon Grove Neighbors Committee.
“We are going to carry on the tradition of being in the neighborhood, and we are going to see that all people are equal and we stand up for people who don’t have a voice,” Stapleton said. “That’s what we’re all about.”
Photo, left by Karen Pearlman: Pastors Mark and Anne Stapleton of Grace Communion Lemon Grove, on the site where a mural depicts the Lemon Grove Incident, speak to those gathered March 30 to celebrate the landmark legal decision that ended school segregation in Lemon Grove.
Stapleton asked anyone who was in attendance who is related to anyone painted on the mural or mentioned on the mural to stand up, and about 20 people rose. They were roundly applauded by others in attendance.
By Miriam Raftery
Photo courtesy of Sky 10 via ABC 10 News, an ECM news partner
March 28, 2025 (El Cajon) – Federal immigration authorities raided the San Diego Powder and Protective Coatings company on Magnolia Ave. in El Cajon yesterday afternoon. A search warrant accuses the company of hiring undocumented workers, as well as fraud and misuse of visas, ECM news partner 10 News reports.
Shawn Gibson, ICE Homeland Security Investigations special agent in charge of San Diego, said agents arrested fewer than 20 people while executing a criminal search warrant. The arrests included administration arrests for violation of immigration laws as well as criminal arrests.
Employees told KPBS that around 50 workers were handcuffed and forced to stand in the sun, with requests for water denied, while agents verified immigration status of each person. U.S. citizens were later freed to leave, while others were taken into custody and face potential deportation.
Blanca Corona told KPBS that her husband, a youth soccer coach and the family’s primary wage earner was detained. “We have four kids,” she said, holding back tears. Corona said she and her children are citizens and that the family had hired a lawyer to help her husband adjust his status, but he was arrested anyway.
According Cto 10 News, agents with Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, along with what appeared to be several other law enforcement agencies, participated in the enforcement sweep.
The action is part of a nationwide crackdown on undocumented immigrants carried out by the Trump administration.
A spokesperson for Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, whose district includes El Cajon, said her office has sent inquiries to ICE and DHS to learn more and to assure that people’s rights and due process are being followed.
Serious questions over mistreatment of deported immigrants have been raised.
The Trump administration deported some to the infamous prison at Guantanamo Bay, but later returned those detainees to facilities in the U.S. following protests and a Congressional oversight visit. Some may be returned to their home countries or to other nations.
Recently, the Trump administration sent some migrants, allegedly violent Venezuelan gang members, to a prison in El Salvador infamous for human rights abuses. The administration officials defied a judge’s order to turn planes around that were flying migrants to El Salvador, amid concerns over due process rights violations. The judge is weighing contempt of court charges against administration officials.
Meanwhile the Trump Justice Dept. has asked the Supreme Court to intervene to allow the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Cesar Chavez passed away in 1993. Where are today’s heroes?
By Dr. Sergio R. Conti, MPH
March 23, 2025 (El Cajon) -- I once asked a 12-year-old seventh grader who his Latin idol was. Without hesitation, he replied, “El Canelo Álvarez.” I explained to him that a hero is admired for their brave actions, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. Heroes can emerge in history, literature, film, or real life. They are individuals who fight for justice, save lives, inspire others, or demonstrate extraordinary courage in the face of adversity. The boy looked at me thoughtfully and admitted he didn’t know anyone like that.
If I posed the same question to a child in Mexico, they might name Juárez, Madero, or Los Niños Héroes, among others. It made me reflect on how white children in the U.S. have figures like Washington, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. At the same time, African Americans look up to Martin Luther King Jr. Meanwhile, in the Latin community, we should honor figures like César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, but Chávez’s legacy is often overshadowed by claims that he referred to undocumented workers as “wetbacks.”
The absence of unifying heroes in the Latin community is no accident. Despite being over 20% of the U.S. population—more than 62 million people—we lack a figure who can bring us together. This results from the age-old tactic of “divide and conquer,” used since colonial times. The English employed it in Latin America, fragmenting the continent into small, distrustful nations. Those who sought to divide us crushed the vision of a united “Gran América” dreamed of by San Martín and Bolívar.
The Legacy of César Chávez
César Chávez, an American labor leader and civil rights activist, dedicated his life to defending the rights of farm workers. Born on March 31, 1927, in Yuma, Arizona, to a family of Mexican origin, Chávez experienced firsthand the injustices and harsh conditions faced by migrant workers. These experiences fueled his lifelong fight for their rights.
In 1962, Chávez co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) with Dolores Huerta, which later became the United Farm Workers (UFW). Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, Chávez championed nonviolent tactics like strikes and boycotts to improve working conditions for farmworkers. His efforts led to significant victories, including recognizing the UFW as a representative body in negotiations with employers.
The Grape Boycott One of Chávez’s most notable achievements was the grape boycott, a pivotal part of the Delano strike (1965–1970).
The Strike Begins: On September 8, 1965, Filipino farmworkers initiated a strike against grape growers in Delano, California, protesting low wages and poor conditions.
Chávez Joins: On September 16, 1965, Mexican Independence Day, Chávez and the NFWA joined the strike.
Boycott Expansion: The boycott spread across North America, becoming a powerful tool for the movement. Chávez emphasized nonviolence and unity among workers of all ethnicities.
Victory: By July 1970, the boycott succeeded, securing a collective bargaining agreement that benefited over 10,000 farmworkers.
Context and Criticism
Some criticize Chávez for using derogatory terms like “wetback” to describe undocumented workers. To understand this, we must consider the context. In 1973, farmworkers in California earned an average annual wage of $2,500–$3,000. The UFW fought to secure a minimum wage of $2.50 per hour (equivalent to $20.34 in 2025). However, vineyard companies undermined the movement by hiring undocumented workers as strikebreakers. Faced with this challenge, Chávez’s frustration was understandable, though not excusable.
Personal Reflection
No one is without flaws. As humans, we all have moments we regret. Even so, Chávez’s achievements remain extraordinary. He and Dolores Huerta paved the way for labor rights, yet their leadership has not been succeeded by others who can unify the Latin community. Today, we face challenges from those who seek to marginalize us, yet our politicians often fail to support our fight. Perhaps it is up to us to become the heroes who will change our reality.
César Chávez passed away on April 23, 1993, in San Luis, Arizona. His legacy is a symbol of the fight for civil and labor rights.
The opinions in this reader’s editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
By Miriam Raftery
March 12, 2025 (El Cajon) – Four members of El Cajon’s City Council yesterday voted to send letters of support for H.R. 1680 to its author, Colorado Republican Gabe Evans, and ask local Congressman Darrell Issa to co-sponsor the bill--even though the text of the bill has not yet been released.
The only description on the Congressional website states that the measure will “amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to expand the prohibition on State noncompliance with enforcement of the immigration laws, and for other purposes.” But according to Congress.gov, no text of the bill has yet been submitted to the Legislative Analyst. So we don’t know how the bill would affect immigrant enforcement locally, nor what “other purposes” might be included.
Two members of the public spoke, both opposed to the action.
Rebecca Branstetter called the bill “a pig in a poke” since there’s no text on the Congressional website yet. “If we can’t read and understand the text of the bill, we can’t know what Council is asking for in its letter to Darrell Issa.” She asked that the measure be tabled until text is available for residents and Councilmembers to review.
Stephane Cauchon also voiced opposition, calling the matter “a tempest in a teapot.” She voiced her opinion that nationally, “We’re close to a turning point” as voters lose jobs, benefits, VA services, understaffed national parks and other actions of the Trump administration. Coming on the heels of El Cajon’s recent 3-2 vote to support having police cooperate with federal immigration authorities to deport people accused or convicted of serious crimes, she said of the latest immigration proposal before the Council, “The tide is going to turn and the communities that are supporting you now will stop supporting you, and be ready to support those that have integrity.”
Two members of the City Council also voiced concerns over the lack of specifics in the bill.
“I’m very reluctant to support something that there’s no text on. It’s a blank check,” said Councilman Gary Kendrick.
Kendrick further pointed out that a letter the city just received from the U.S. Department of Justice confirms that the federal government will not indemnify El Cajon or its police officers, if the state takes legal action against them for violating SB 54, California’s law prohibiting local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration, except for undocumented persons convicted of certain serious or violent crimes.
Councilmember Michell Metschel said she watched a video by the Colorado Congressman in which he talked about “uncuffing the police and getting rid of all the illegal aliens,” not just violent criminals. “I don’t want to put my name on a letter going to a Congressman who hasn’t even written his bill yet.”
Councilman Steve Goble argued, “This is a chance to help craft the text,” noting that the city could pull its support in the future if it didn’t like the final language. He cited language in the draft letter from Mayor Bill Wells to Congressman Gabe Evans, the bill’s author, which says that El Cajon’s police chief suggests there may be over 200 “dangerous criminals” who are undocumented, living in El Cajon, as well as 52 unaccompanied minors who crossed the border, and whom the city is not allowed to check up on due to SB 54.
Kendrick suggested that the city should write a letter to state legislators asking for a “carveout from SB 54 to allow us to do welfare checks on these kids and make sure that they are safe.”
Councilmember Phil Ortiz criticized SB 54 for not allowing police to handover undocumented immigrants accused or convicted of non-violent serious crimes such as arson, battery and burglary. "It is not moral to give a free pass to all of these different crimes,” he said.
The measure passed 3-2, with Mayor Wells, Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Goble in support, while Councilmembers Metschel and Kendrick opposed.
By Miriam Raftery
March 3, 2025 (Washington D.C.) – Threats issued by President Donald Trump targeting colleges, universities and student protesters are illegal and unconstitutional, according to legal and civil liberties experts.
Today, Trump posted on his social media account, “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or depending on on the crime, arrested.NO MASKS!”
The post comes on the heels of two executive orders issued by Trump which seek to pressure higher education officials to target immigrant students and staff for exercising First Amendment freedom of spech rights, including pro-Palestinian protesterrs or students critical of the U.S. government, culture, institutions or founding principals. Today's Truth Social post goes further, demanding that even students who are U.S. citizens be expelled and imprisoned for participating in campus protests if deemed "illegal.".
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have both issued statements criticizing Trump’s actions for pressuring colleges and universities to engage in conduct that would violate the U.S. Constitution and other laws. While violence and/or intimidation of individuals based on religious views, such as anti-Semitism, or national origin are already illegal and should not be tolerated on campuses, freedom to express controversial ideas is a core principal of higher education—and the ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of our democracy, the civil rights legal experts make clear.
Below are their statements, both issued today.
Foundation for Individual Rights
Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’
President Trump posted a message on Truth Social this morning that put social media and college campuses on high alert. ...
Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow “illegal” protests.
If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding by taking it to federal court, or via notice to Congress and an administrative hearing. It is not simply a discretionary decision that the president can make.
President Trump also lacks the authority to expel individual students, who are entitled to due process on public college campuses and, almost universally, on private campuses as well.
Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.
As FIRE knows too well from our work defending student and faculty rights under the Obama and Biden administrations, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later.
Even the most controversial political speech is protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court reminds us, in America, we don’t use the law to punish those with whom we disagree. Instead, “[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard.
However, students who engage in misconduct must still receive due process — whether through a campus or criminal tribunal. This requires fair, consistent application of existing law or policy, in a manner that respects students’ rights.
President Trump needs to stand by his past promise to be a champion for free expression. That means doing so for all views — including those his administration dislikes.
American Civil Liberties Union
After Trump Admin Threats, ACLU Sends Letter of Support to Universities, Urging Them to Protect Campus Speech
ACLU makes clear the government cannot threaten funding to universities for fostering an environment of free speech and free inquiry
The American Civil Liberties Union today published an open letter to colleges and universities nationwide urging them to reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish international students and faculty based on constitutionally protected speech. This letter is prompted by two executive orders — Executive Order 14161, titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats” signed on Jan. 20, 2025, and Executive Order 14188, titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” signed on Jan. 29, 2025 — and related communications from the White House.
The guidance is especially timely after an early morning Truth Social post from President Trump threatening to stop federal funding for “any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” and proposing that “agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came.”
“It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly. We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU and co-author of the letter. “Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.”
According to the ACLU, the White House is attempting to pressure university officials to target immigrant and international students, faculty, and staff, including holders of non-immigrant visas and lawful permanent residents or others on a path to U.S. citizenship, for exercising their First Amendment rights. The letter outlines four key principles universities should adhere to when addressing campus speech:
- Colleges and universities should encourage robust discussion and exploration of ideas by students, faculty, and staff, regardless of their nationality or immigration status.
- Nothing obligates universities to act as deputies in immigration law enforcement — to the contrary, universities do not and should not veer so far from their core mission for good reasons.
- Schools must protect the privacy of all students, including immigrant and international students.
- Schools must abide by the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
“The federal government cannot mandate expulsion of students or threaten funding cuts to punish constitutionally protected speech on campus,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “While the administration can enforce Title VI to ensure a learning environment free from harassment, it cannot force universities into adopting restrictive speech codes that silence the viewpoints the government disfavors.”
This is the fourth set of guidance from the ACLU to universities since 2023. Dozens of ACLU affiliates have taken legal action, conducted know your rights trainings, or issued additional guidance related to protest on campuses.
Related Documents
Federal judge from Maryland temporarily blocks the Trump administration from using ICE to arrest migrants in certain sensitive locations
By G. A. McNeeley
March 3, 2025 (Washington D.C.) - A federal judge on Monday, February 24, in Maryland, temporarily blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting raids, and targeting and arresting migrants inside of a select few churches, temples, and other places of worship run by organizations that filed the lawsuit. View the ruling.
The lawsuit challenged an order by the Trump administration to allow ICE enforcement in sensitive locations, including places of worship, a change to a longstanding federal policy which prohibited enforcement actions in places of worship as well as schools and hospitals. The religious groups challenged this change as unconstitutional. The ruling came down on the side of the religious groups who sued the Trump administration in response to the policy change, after asking federal courts to intervene.
President Donald Trump ran on a platform of tougher immigration enforcement, and has promised the largest deportation effort in history. But educators and religious leaders say those efforts have already gone too far, and are also violating the rights of American citizens.
Federal Judge Favors Religious Groups
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, in Maryland, ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subdivision, ICE, not to conduct immigration enforcement actions "in or near any place of worship" associated with the case brought by Quakers, Baptists, Sikhs, Mennonites, and Jewish congregations.
Unlike other nationwide restraining orders judges have issued against Trump administration policies in recent weeks, the order issued by Chuang only applies to the facilities used by a handful of the Quaker, Baptist and Sikh denominations and congregations that sued last month.
“Violations of this preliminary injunction shall subject defendants and all other persons bound by this order to all applicable penalties, including contempt of court,” Chuang wrote. This order doesn't apply to arrests authorized by an administrative or judicial warrant.
Chuang’s ruling is another setback for President Trump’s goal of strengthening immigration enforcement and conducting mass deportations of migrants who are in the country without legal authorization.
Chuang, who is based in Greenbelt, said the policy likely violated the groups’ First Amendment right to freedom of association, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law which restricts government activities that impinge on religious practice.
Chuang emphasized that his analysis was tailored to the houses of worship that filed suit because they explicitly welcome immigrants, regardless of legal status, and would logically be a target for potential Trump administration enforcement actions.
“In issuing this injunction, the Court does not question that law enforcement, when necessary, must have the ability to conduct operations in or near places of worship,” Chuang concluded. “The court finds only that at this early stage of the case, on the sensitive and fraught issue of when and under what circumstances law enforcement may intrude into places of worship to conduct warrantless operations, the 2025 policy’s lack of any meaningful limitations or safeguards … does not satisfy these constitutional and statutory requirements.”
The Changes That Are Being Made
For decades, federal immigration agents have generally avoided conducting enforcement sweeps or detentions at what the federal government deemed "sensitive" areas, although there were exceptions in emergencies.
The Biden administration in 2021 expanded the order, and schools, churches, hospitals and local courthouses were deemed generally off-limits in order to permit everyone (including those living illegally in the United States) access to worship, healthcare, education and the courts to resolve speeding tickets or other legal matters. Biden’s expansion also included bus stops, playgrounds, food pantries, weddings and funerals.
The acting head of DHS, Benjamine Huffman, had issued a memo that immediately removed that long standing policy, and instead told agents to use "common sense" in making arrests where necessary.
"Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest," Huffman said. "The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense."
Chuang, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in a 59-page opinion that the removal of those limits threatened the religious freedom of the groups seeking relief from the court.
“The substantial burden that the Trump administration policy is far from speculative and is already occurring,” wrote Chuang, who noted reports that congregations with large immigrant populations have drawn fewer attendees since the Trump directive was issued last month. “It is reasonable to expect that such enforcement actions will occur at plaintiffs’ place of worship where DHS specifically stated in its press release announcing the 2025 policy that ‘criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.’”
What Religious Groups Have To Say
Chuang's action means that about 1,700 places of worship associated with the plaintiffs' organizations in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will be temporarily spared from immigration enforcement operations.
The policy change was among the Trump administration's immigration actions criticized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, although that organization did not join multiple lawsuits brought by faith communities.
The lawsuit argued that any government policy based solely on common sense was an unconstitutional violation of freedom of association under the First Amendment. The lawsuit also said the policy violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Quakers said it violated their exercise of religion because having ICE agents park outside services and interrupting to “drag a congregant out during the middle of worship” would discourage attendance.
“For over 30 years, it has been the government’s official policy to not enforce immigration laws in ‘protected areas,’ which include houses of worship (and other religious ceremonies like weddings and funerals), absent certain extraordinary circumstances. Rightly so,” the lawsuit said. “Enforcement in protected areas like houses of worship would, in the government’s own words, ‘restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities.’”
The groups that sued over the policy include Quaker congregations in Philadelphia; Richmond, Va.; Maryland and New England, as well as a Sikh temple in Sacramento, and a coalition of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches headquartered in Georgia.
What Other People Have To Say
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a group representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement, "For decades, the government has recognized that everyone, no matter their immigration status, should be able to attend houses of worship without fear of a warrantless government raid."
"Religious institutions should not have to go to court to fight for the right to worship and associate freely that is enshrined in our Constitution," Perryman said. "Our plaintiffs represent a unique and diverse coalition of religious groups that have been at the forefront in protecting values of religious liberty for centuries. We are grateful to the court for acting to limit this unlawful and harmful policy."
J. Kevin Appleby, senior fellow for policy at the Center for Migration Studies of New York and the former director of migration policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told OSV News, the judge's decision "is certainly a good sign because the court agreed that immigration enforcement at places of worship can be a violation of religious liberty."
Appleby added that "while the judge did not issue a nationwide ban on enforcement at churches, he opened the door to that possibility in future cases.”
In a statement provided to OSV News about the policy change, Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security's assistant secretary for public affairs, said, "We are protecting our schools, places of worship, and Americans who attend by preventing criminal aliens and gang members from exploiting these locations and taking safe haven there because these criminals knew law enforcement couldn't go inside under the previous Administration."
"DHS's directive gives our law enforcement the ability to do their jobs," McLaughlin added.
Sources:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/24/immigration-enforcement-places-of-worship-00205760
East County News Service
February 21, 2025 (San Diego) – State Senator Brian Jones (R-Santee) held a press conference today to announce introduction of his Senate Bill 554, the Safety Before Criminal Sanctuary Act. The bill would prevent local jurisdictions from restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement beyond what SB 54, existing state law, already allows. In addition, Jones’ bill would make it mandatory for cities and counties to turn over undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of certain violent or serious felony crimes, as SB 54 allows but does not mandate.
The Safety Before Criminal Sanctuary Act is a commonsense measure to tighten up California’s Sanctuary State policies in favor of public safety,” said Jones, the State Senate Minority Leader. “Importantly, this bill ensures violent criminals are not shielded from federal immigration authorities, using every tool in the toolbox to keep our communities safe.”
Specifically, those crimes include child abuse, unlawful weapon possession or use, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, trafficking controlled substances, rape, kidnapping, torture, murder, gang activity, arson, and those on the sex offender registry.
State law prohibits cooperation for anyone not convicted of one or more of those crimes.
SB 554 is in response to a recent San Diego County ordinance declaring itself a “Super Sanctuary County,” banning law enforcement from cooperating with ICE for any offense—even those exempted under SB 54—unless a federal warrant is issued.
“We are stopping ‘super sanctuary’ cities and counties,” said Jones.
Last December, County Supervisors voted 3-1 to restrict the use of county resources for federal immigration enforcement. Former Chairwoman Nora Vargas said at the time that the policy was intended to “ensure local resources are focused on addressing the county's most urgent needs, while protecting families and promoting community trust."
San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez later stated that her department will follow state law, however, making the Supervisors’ action ineffective.
Supervisor Joel Anderson voted no on the county measure. ““I’m grateful for Senate Minority Leader Jones’ laser focus on keeping our kids and communities safe,” he said at the press conference.
Supervisor Jim Desmond said, “The current sanctuary state law ties the hands of local law enforcement, preventing them from cooperating with federal authorities to address real threats.” He added that he will be asking his colleagues on the board of Supervisors to support Jones’ bill.
Republican Congressman Darrell Issa also backs Jones’ measure. ““The authors and advocates of California’s sanctuary laws claim they protect people. But that’s not true. For years, they have instead shielded many of the most dangerous criminals in the country, all of them here illegally, and the names of the innocent California victims are a roll call of shame on the Governor and the Legislature.
Click here to read the bill’s factsheet. SB 554 is awaiting assignment to a Senate policy committee for a hearing.
By Chris Jennewein, Times of San Diego, a member of the San Diego Online News Association
Photo: a child at Jewish Family Service of San Diego’s refugee shelter. (File photo by Chris Stone/Times of San Diego)
February 17, 2025 (San Diego) - Faced with a halt in federal funding and and the closing of the border to refugees, Jewish Family Service of San Diego is shutting down its shelter and shifting focus to legal support of asylum seekers.
CEO Michael Hopkins said in a statement received Saturday that following the Trump administration’s suspension of the CBP One smartphone asylum-filing application on Jan. 20, no refugee individuals or families have been released to the shelter.
In addition, $22 million in promised federal funding has not been received, leading to future layoffs of the shelter staff.
“As a result of this change in federal funding and policy, on Feb. 10, we provided shelter services staff with 60 days’ notice,” Hopkins said. “We are working to identify any potential opportunities for re-engagement with our valued shelter services staff in other departments in the future.”
Since October 2018, JFS has assisted more than 248,000 people seeking asylum — providing temporary shelter, food, case management, medical and legal services, and travel coordination to reunite people with their loved ones across the United States. The shelter and associated services were considered a national model.
“We are proud of our dedicated staff’s tremendous, round-the-clock work to welcome people with dignity every day and of what we accomplished — centering humanity, prioritizing public health and keeping hundreds of thousands of new people to our community from becoming homeless on the streets of San Diego,” Hopkins said.
He said JFS would pivot to providing legal services for refugees, the Dreamers brought to the U.S. as children, and other immigrants.
“While there are no longer individuals or families seeking asylum released from short term federal immigration custody to our shelter services, we are seeing increased needs for immigration legal assistance and other social service supports to vulnerable San Diegans,” he said.
The agency was founded in 1918 to help Jewish refugees stuck in Mexico after World War I migrate to the United Sates. It now assists individuals of all faiths with a variety of social services, in addition to helping immigrants.
Issue prompts drive to recall Councilman Phil Ortiz
By Alex Schorr and Miriam Raftery
Photo, left: Resolution opponents hold up sign denouncing hate and likening ICE roundups to “Gestapo” tactics
February 14, 2025 (El Cajon) – El Cajon’s City Council on Tuesday passed a controversial resolution allowing the city’s police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and hand over any undocumented who has been convicted of a violent crime, as well as immigrants merely accused of a crime. The measure was introduced by Mayor Bill Wells, with backing of Councilmember Phil Ortiz and amendments by Councilman Steve Goble.
The meeting was contentious, sparked by numerous emotional outbursts, threats to recall Councilmember Ortiz for supporting the resolution, and playing of phone threats made against Councilmembers who voted against the measure previously.
Just two weeks ago, the Council rejected a similar proposal by a 3-2 vote, but reversed that action on Wednesday after Councilmember Goble switched sides.
“We’re not a sanctuary city,” said Goble, adding that the city should not hinder federal immigration authorities. He voiced support for deporting violent criminals, then revealed that he and Mayor Bill Wells held a meeting in December with Tom Homan, Pres Donald Trump’s border czar, on the issue.
California’s SB 54 law prohibits local law enforcement officers from participating in immigration sweeps and allows officers to only turn over undocumented immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if they have been convicted of certain serious felony crimes and if there is a judicial warrant. But the Trump administration is rounding up many immigrants who have not been convicted of crimes. Both the federal and state government have threatened legal actions against cities that comply or defy SB 54. Ultimately, Goble said he wants to see SB 54 amended to allow more cooperation between police and ICE.
The revised resolution includes several amendments, including one proposed by Goble asking the U.S. Attorney General to indemnify El Cajon and defend its police officers against state challenges over immigration actions. “I don’t want this conflict to punish our police officers,” said Goble, who insisted that the resolution is for the “sole purpose of getting rid of serious and violent criminals and to protect the people of El Cajon.”
But the resolution allows far more than that in authorizing police to handover people merely accused of a crime to ICE for deportation, including to foreign prisons or the infamous Guantanamo Bay “Gitmo” prison without any opportunity for due process or a trial.
In public comments, 46 speakers addressed the Council in heated testimony on both sides. Repeatedly, participants caused vocal disturbances, booed or cheered, and several made racially charged remarks. Several times, Mayor Wells called brief recesses due to disruptions, at one point threatening to “move this upstairs and leave you all out of it,” with only press allowed to be present.
Patricia Mondragon (photo, right), regional and policy manager for Alliance San Diego, said Trump’s promise to remove only violent criminals is “a lie. In city after city, nonoffenders are being detained and living in fear.” Mondragon warned that even some immigrants with legal status, such as those who lawfully requested asylum and are awaiting hearings, are being swept up by ICE.
Mondragon said the resolution’s backers have mischaracterized numbers provided by ICE last year, which suggested that 640,000 undocumented criminals in the U.S. are not detained. In fact, about a third of those have not been convicted of any crime. Of those convicted, many or perhaps most are already in prisons. That data spans decades, so some of those individuals may have died or left the U.S. on their own.
She believes Mayor Wells is “setting the city up as a litigant to challenge existing state law” and “asking the Attorney General for permission to violate state law.”
Many speakers characterized the resolution as racist and voiced fears that people with brown skin will face racial profiling.
Dr. Sergio Conte (photo, left) said he loves living in El Cajon, which has over 70 ethnic communities. He spoke of enjoying ethnic restaurants, walking his dog in the park among people of many cultures, and watching children from Afghanistan playing cricket. “We never had these problems until the Mayor divided us,” he said. Now we are white against brown people...Why? In 116 years we never had one councilmember to represent our community,” he said, noting that 35% of El Cajon voters are of Spanish heritage.
Then he directed his outrage at Councilmember Phil Ortiz—and issued a recall election threat. “We are going to recall you in 90 days, on March 10,” he told Ortiz, “because you were elected by the Latino community and you hate us...We are not criminals.” Ortiz represents a heavily Hispanic district; state law allows recall of an official 90 days after their current term of office begins.
But Mary Davis (photo, right) sees the resolution as “standing up for law and order.” She insists that isn’t racist. While opponents spoke of “kids in cages” in detention camps, Davis spoke of “kids in coffins.” She held up a photo of three children whom she said were killed in Sacramento by an undocumented father after he was arrested for a violent offense, then released.
Closer to home, RAD movement cofounder Sharie Finn says her child was raped and trafficked by an “illegal immigrant who is sitting in prison right now” but was not deported. She said the RAD movement’s volunteers have rescued children being trafficked locally. Finn supports the resolution because “this is one step to help our officers in getting violent offenders off the streets, period.”
Several speakers referenced the Lincoln-Reily act just passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. It mandates federal detention of immigrants accused of even non-violent crimes such as theft.
“We’re talking about sending El Cajon residents to foreign concentration camps without a trial,” one woman said, noting that a notorious prison in El Salvador, which has offered to take in deportees, has had people die of dehydration.
Others predicted the resolution would mire the city in costly litigation. Lawsuits potentially be filed by the state of California as well as immigrant rights and civil rights organizations, since the resolution could be challenged as unconstitutional for violating due process and a right for accused persons to have a speedy trial, since the Constitution applies to everyone in the U.S, regardless of citizenship statues.
Some supporters lobbed inflammatory statements. One woman called for all undocumented immigrants to be deported, adding, “Anybody up here who would like to have a sanctuary city should be arrested...Anybody that wants to protest and burn our flag should be arrested also.”
Some opponents likened ICE tactics to fascism or Nazism. Others quoted Bible verses to support positions on both sides.
Amy Reichert from Restore San Diego (photo, right) spoke in support of the resolution, stating, “This should not be a debate. We should not be called anti-Christian or racist.”
The final speaker, Julianne, told the Council that in 1931, “Mexicans were rounded up from hospitals, from cities, from their homes....they were summarily put in boxcars and trucked to Mexico....One of them was my grandfather. He was taken out of the hospital and sent to Mexico City; he was not from Mexico City...My grandmother despairingly went after him with my mother and my aunt; both were born here in the United States” and remained in Mexico until 1965.
She offered a chilling warning about “people who do not learn history and do not remember history. As you can see, it will be done again—and we need to learn from that.”
After the public speakers, Councilmembers held a discussion.
Councilman Gary Kendrick had the City Attorney clarify that SB 54 was challenged in federal court in 2017, but was upheld as constitutional by atrial court and by the 9th circuit court, with the Supreme Court allowing the law to stand without hearing it, making “SB 54 the law of the land,” Kendrick noted.
He then asked City Manager Graham Mitchell to dispel misinformation circulating online claiming that El Cajon is a sanctuary city. Mtichell made clear, “Not once in the nearly 25 years that I’ve been city attorney has the Council adopted a resolution, ordinance, or anything else that the city is a sancturay city.”
Kendrick asked if an officer violates SB 54, can the state remove their certification to serve as a police officer in California? The City Manager looked up state law and later confirmed that while SB54 doesn’t expressly require decertification, there are provisions that if an officer “violates state law or demonstrates bias, the state can take away your certification.”
Kendrick made clear, ”I don’t want to put our police officers in jeopardy or make it difficult to do their job.” He noted that the police need people willing to cooperate as witnesses and report crimes, not be afraid of police. As a Sunday school teacher, he voiced concern over ICE now being allowed to enter churches, schools and hospitals, adding that if people are afraid to go to clinics or hospitals for treatments or vaccines, diseases such as strep throat, measles or chicken pox could spread. “This is hurting our community,” he said.
He noted that no other local cities have passed such a measure, and only one other city of 480 in California has done so.” Let’s see how all this works out through the courts,” he said, voicing concern over costly lawsuits.
Kendrick also condemned callers who left “profane” and “disgusting” messages on his voice mail at City Hall, the played several of them as examples.
The majority of you are traitors to this country and all your information is public,” one caller threated. Another demanded after the last meeting, “Why did you vote no to get rid of all the dirty, stinking illegal aliens?” One message called him a “retarded, fat piece of s**t.” Yet another denounced Kendrick’s mother, who lived in Czechoslovakia when the Nazis took her Jewish boss, who was never seen again. “Goddamn you to f**ing hell and your mother is a f***ing whore,” the caller ranted.
Kendrick indicated that Councilmember Michelle Metschel received similar messages after voting against the resolution. Both say they support deporting convicted violent criminals as SB 54 allows.
“I am disgusted at such an attack on the democratic process through these attempts at intimidation and the threats that are completely against American democracy,” Kendrick said, drawing a standing ovation (photo,left)
Councilmember Metschel used her time to push back against a woman who forwarded an email that spread on the internet, in which Metschel apologized for becoming emotional in what she termed “bad behavior” at the last meeting, though other speakers applauded her for taking a strong stand. In an ironic tone, she thanked those who spread the message and “making sure the public knew a public official could be human and not jaded.”
Metschel then confronted Amy Reichert over her statements repeatedly claiming El Cajon voted to “stay a sanctuary city” including on an Instagram post and an email to supporters. Reichert leaped out of her seat in the audience, shouting repeatedly at Metschel in an angry outburst that prompted calls for her removal. Instead, the Mayor announced a 10-minute recess for “cooler heads” to prevail.
Councilman Ortiz (photo, left) doubled down on his stance in favor of the resolution. “I want violent criminals removed and I have big problems with SB 54,” he said. He noted that many crimes are not included on the list of those for which immigrants can be handed over to ICE, ranging from shoplifting and theft to disorderly conduct, forgery, fraud, drug offenses and arson.
“I’m not going to be pressured or bullied or shouted into saying that this resolution is something that it’s not,” he said. Ortiz called generalizations on both sides “crazy” such as “every immigrant is a criminal” as well as accusations that “I hate Mexicans.” That’s not true.”
Councilman Goble, who cast the swing vote, insisted that it’s about “public safety” but declined to acknowledge the serious concerns raised over potentially innocent people being deported without a trial or conviction. “I will support this resolution because I authored a resolution to support the backs of our police officers who have our backs,”he said, drawing a chorus of both cheers and jeers from the audience.
Mayor Wells made clear that he supports deportation without convictions in court, calling the resolution “a no brainer. We arrest someone for doing something bad who does not belong in this country, we should be able to do anything we can to get them out of this country.” Mayor Wells noted that the majority of El Cajon voters voted for Trump and wanted change.
He then denounced vocal opponents of the resolution as “completely disingenuous” adding, “People just tuned you out, because they know that you are liars.”
Wells made a motion to approve the resolution, which was seconded by Ortiz. The measure passed 3-2, with Metschel and Kendrick opposed.
The audience erupted into a mixture of gasps, jeers, and cheers, with some chanting, “Recall Phil.”
Latinos in Accion has now launched a website, https://www.recallphilortiz.com/, in Spanish and English.
By Patrick Cameron, El Cajon
February 13, 2025 (El Cajon) -- In one of Donald Trump’s first acts in office, he stripped away protections for schools, hospitals, and places of worship from immigration enforcement. These were once safe spaces where people could learn, receive health care, and pray without fear. Now they have been turned into targets for ICE raids.
This is unconscionable. As the world’s largest historical climate polluter, the United States has a responsibility to immigrants. Our pollution is causing the climate chaos — droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising waters — that is forcing people in Latin America, Asia, Africa and elsewhere to leave their homes. Others are fleeing violence, poverty, and hunger — all of which are caused or made worse by the climate crisis.
People have the right to be able to leave their homes and migrate with dignity to find safe haven. But right now, immigrant families are facing the unimaginable: the fear that seeking education or health care could mean deportation, or that a peaceful moment of prayer might be shattered by ICE agents barging in.As municipal leaders, mayors have the power to fight this. They can protect immigrant families by ordering police not to participate in ICE raids and even to block ICE agents’ entry into schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
The future of so many families in our communities is on the line. We must call on local leaders to do the right thing, even as the federal government does not. I’m writing to urge mayors to hear this call and take action to protect immigrants.
The opinions voiced in this reader's editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East CountyMagazine. To submit an editorial for consideration,contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org(link sends e-mail)