San Diego County Tightens Rules on Immigration Agents’ Access

(SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA) San Diego County moved a step closer this week to tightening limits on where federal immigration agents can operate and how local departments interact with them. In a 3-2 vote on October 21, 2025, the Board of Supervisors advanced a pair of policies that would require judicial warrants for immigration agents to enter nonpublic areas of county-controlled property, restrict cooperation with ICE on lower-level offenses, and narrow data sharing with federal authorities. The measures mirror California’s “sanctuary state” rules under SB 54, and supporters say they will protect public safety by encouraging victims and witnesses to seek help without fear.

What the policies would do

Under the plan, which is expected to return for final adoption in the coming weeks, San Diego County would set clear boundaries for federal immigration enforcement on county property. The rules would cover spaces such as back offices in county buildings, nonpublic areas in health facilities, and jail areas not open to the public. Federal agents would need a judge-signed warrant—not just an administrative request—before entering those zones.

County leaders said the goal is to give residents clarity on when and how immigration enforcement may occur on county grounds. The policies also tighten how local departments may cooperate with ICE:

• Nonpublic access limits: Immigration agents would need a judicial warrant to enter nonpublic areas of county-controlled sites.
• Narrowed cooperation: County staff would not help with lower-level immigration enforcement; assistance would be allowed only for serious or violent crimes, consistent with state rules.
• Data protections: County entities would be barred from sharing resident data with ICE unless state law requires it.
• Voluntary interviews: Detainee interviews requested by immigration agents would require voluntary consent, with forms in the detainee’s main language.

Legal and procedural context

California’s SB 54 sets the statewide floor. The law limits local cooperation with immigration enforcement to defined circumstances involving serious or violent crimes and bars use of local resources for general immigration enforcement. San Diego County’s action would largely align county operations with those standards while adding facility-access controls and consent rules for interviews.

For the text of the state law, see California SB 54.

County attorneys say the ordinance will come back for a second reading after public comment and possible amendments. Formal adoption is expected in the coming weeks, though dates may shift. If adopted, county departments would issue guidance to staff on the warrant standard, data-handling rules, and consent forms.

Reactions from the Sheriff and law enforcement

Sheriff Kelly Martinez responded that her office will follow state law and will not adopt county directives that conflict with it. She emphasized that the Sheriff’s Department is independently elected and bound by state, not county, mandates.

Martinez reiterated longstanding practice: the department does not take part in immigration raids, does not ask about immigration status, and will cooperate with ICE only in cases defined by state law as serious or violent crimes. Her stance underscores a tension shared by other county sheriffs across California who balance local policy with state legal duties.

Supporters’ arguments

Backers say these rules will make it clear to residents—especially mixed-status families—that reporting crime, going to a health clinic, or visiting a county office will not trigger deportation concerns. Community advocates argue that when people are afraid to call 911, public safety suffers.

• “Trust is safety,” one supporter told the Board, noting that many crime victims in immigrant neighborhoods avoid police contact because they fear contact with ICE.
• Supporters point to practical harms: parents avoiding clinics, workers not reporting wage theft, and domestic violence survivors who fear calling police.
• They say aligning county practices with state rules helps ensure consistent treatment and rebuilds trust after stronger federal enforcement under the administration of President Trump.

Opponents’ concerns

Opponents, including some local officials and residents, say the county is going too far. Their main points:

• Strict limits on contact with immigration agents could let noncitizens with prior convictions for lower-level offenses avoid early referral to federal authorities.
• Critics worry this could be a public safety risk.
• Some question mirroring the City of San Diego’s ordinance, given different responsibilities across regional agencies.
• Others stress that the federal government has clear authority over immigration and warn that restricting coordination can send mixed messages.

Some residents want tighter cooperation with ICE, especially when someone in local custody has prior immigration violations.

How the changes would look on the ground

If approved, most changes would be operational and behind the scenes. Practical effects for residents:

• People visiting county offices or seeking services should not see immigration agents in nonpublic areas unless agents have a warrant.
• Those in county custody would receive consent forms in their own language before any interview with immigration agents, and they could decline.
• Law enforcement interactions would remain focused on public safety, with referrals to ICE only in serious or violent cases as defined by state law.

County departments would also be expected to issue staff guidance on:

1. How to verify judge-signed warrants for access to nonpublic areas.
2. Procedures for handling and limiting data requests from federal authorities.
3. Use and distribution of voluntary consent forms in detainees’ primary languages.
4. Training and signage to reduce confusion among staff and the public.

Background and broader trends

The push follows several years of policy swings in San Diego County. In 2018, the Board took a more cooperative stance toward federal immigration enforcement. That approach has since shifted, part of a wider move across California counties to set local guardrails.

• At least eight other counties have adopted similar policies limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
• According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, counties are focusing on clear procedures—such as warrant requirements and consent standards—to reduce confusion among staff and the public.

Community groups in San Diego County plan to hold information sessions to explain the rules, especially in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Legal service providers say they will watch how the consent requirement for interviews is carried out and whether facilities adopt clear signage and staff training.

Employers and schools, which are not county-run, are watching the move as a signal of how local governments in the United States 🇺🇸 are setting boundaries with federal immigration enforcement.

The policy does not stop federal immigration agents from enforcing federal law. Rather, it sets conditions for access to county property and limits how county resources are used.

Next steps and public involvement

The Board will accept more public comment before final votes. County attorneys say the ordinance will return for a second reading after public comment and possible amendments, with formal adoption expected in the coming weeks.

Officials and community members alike agree on one point: clear rules help everyone. Whether the final language is adopted as currently drafted or amended after more debate, San Diego County is signaling a durable framework for its relationship with ICE and other immigration agents—one that aligns with state law while setting local expectations for privacy, consent, and cooperation.