Northern California town declares itself a ‘non-sanctuary city’ in opposition to California laws – What Changed?
Oroville, a town of almost 20,000 in Butte County, declared itself a “non-sanctuary city” this week in a City Council resolution that pledged “full cooperation” with federal law enforcement but that officials said stopped short of flouting the state’s sanctuary law.
The symbolic move is another indication of how California towns and cities that supported President Donald Trump in his November victory have been increasingly empowered to challenge California’s pro-immigration laws that residents in those areas perceive as anti-public safety. Butte County supported Trump in the recent election, with 50% of votes going to him, compared with 47% for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.
Oroville’s seven-member council approved the resolution unanimously Tuesday. It declares the town “a non-sanctuary city for all criminals,” states the city’s opposition to sanctuary policies that “may place our citizens at unnecessary risk” and reaffirms Oroville’s “commitment to work in full cooperation with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, for the apprehension and prosecution of criminals.”
“We’re not wanting to harbor or be a refuge for anybody who has conducted criminal activities, whatever it may be,” Oroville Mayor David Pittman told the Chronicle. Pittman said the city has virtually no unauthorized immigrant population that he is aware of but that fear of crimes committed by such migrants is “more people’s perception.”
Being unlawfully present in the U.S. is not a criminal but a civil offense.
California passed a sanctuary state law in 2017, known as the California Values Act, that prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, with some exceptions. The law limits when local and state law police can turn over a person in jail to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal agency responsible for deportations, for instance. Exceptions include people who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony.
Sanctuary laws do not prohibit local law enforcement from enforcing criminal law, nor do they stop cooperation with federal criminal law enforcement.
Pittman said the city would still follow the California Values Act and that the resolution was amended during Tuesday’s meeting to remove a line that directed the city administrator and chief of police to implement “non-sanctuary” status for fear it would put city staff in a “precarious” position. The resolution states the city will comply with California’s sanctuary law.
Huntington Beach in Los Angeles County also passed a non-sanctuary resolution last month, after filing a lawsuit challenging California’s sanctuary law in early January. The coastal city had already previously lost a legal fight to be exempt from California’s sanctuary law in 2020. Pittman said Oroville is exploring the possibility of joining the new lawsuit.
San Francisco has a sanctuary law and, along with California, has come under attack from the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with his mass deportation agenda . San Francisco filed a lawsuit last month in response. In his first term Trump tried to cut off federal funding to San Francisco for its sanctuary law, but federal courts ruled in the city’s favor.
Advocates of sanctuary laws say they increase trust in law enforcement and willingness of unauthorized immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with police without fear of immigration repercussions for doing so.
But opponents, including Oroville Council Member Scott Thomson, who championed the move, said repeat criminal offenders who are in the country illegally should be turned over to federal immigration authorities.
“The resolution is not about politics,” Thomson said during the council meeting. “It’s about protecting our residents from dangerous criminals who, under SB54, are often released back into our communities instead of being turned over to ICE. We’ve seen time and time again that sanctuary policies put the rights of criminals over the safety of law-abiding citizens.”
SB54 refers to the California Values Act.
Thomson said he felt the voice of northern, rural counties was not being heard in Sacramento, which he said legislates with urban metropolitan areas in mind. He said he has nothing against immigrants and that he used to work in construction, alongside immigrants here illegally, who were “salt of the earth.”
His opposition, he said, is to people who commit crimes, regardless of immigration status.
“We’re not all just right-wing nut jobs here,” he said.
Oroville has taken symbolic stands against state and federal government before. In 2021, the City Council declared Oroville a “constitutional republic” to push back on COVID-19 regulations and refused to enforce federal or state orders that it said are “overreaching” and violated “constitutionally protected rights.”
Kimberly Mitchell, who said she is a third-generation Oroville resident, opposed the resolution during the council meeting Tuesday, pointing to the body of research that shows immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens.
“If we’re over here, distracted by the smokescreen of making a symbolic gesture of our loyalty to the Trump administration and missing an opportunity to use our time, resources, energy and money to be investing back into our local economy and our local people, so they can stay off the streets,” Mitchell said. “Of the issues Oroville is facing, I think immigration is not one of them.”
Editor’s note: This story was updated on March 6 to correct information on immigration offenses. Being unlawfully present in the U.S. is a civil offense.
