UMVA has learned that a fierce battle over California’s sanctuary laws is now endangering the safety of unaccompanied migrant children in El Cajon.
City officials say a federal list of dozens of children, some with addresses in the community, triggered a moral dilemma: dispatch police for welfare checks and risk violating state law, or leave vulnerable minors unchecked.
Mayor Bill Wells and Councilman Steve Goble described the predicament as a “catch‑22” that forces officers to choose between breaking a state sanctuary statute or ignoring a possible trafficking threat.
In a heated February meeting with homeland security officials, Goble was handed a spreadsheet of 52 minors and asked whether local police could “ensure these kids are safe.” He immediately sought guidance from the attorney general’s office before any officers were sent out.
“It’s hard to imagine why they’re choosing this hill to die on,” Wells warned, accusing the state of valuing a political narrative over real children’s lives.
Goble’s March request to the attorney general emphasized that the city’s sole concern was the children’s safety, regardless of citizenship, and cited urgent warnings that unaccompanied minors face heightened risks of trafficking and forced labor.
The attorney general’s June response cautioned that any welfare check based on federal immigration data could violate the California Values Act, potentially obligating officers to hand over location information to immigration authorities.
Goble insisted the city never asked police to act as immigration agents, only to confirm whether a child was safe, stating, “All I care about is the kid’s safety.”
That exchange has become a centerpiece of El Cajon’s broader lawsuit filed in April, which seeks a court injunction to block the enforcement of sanctuary statutes that the city claims cripple everyday policing.
The motion argues that officers now spend precious minutes untangling legal technicalities instead of responding to genuine public‑safety emergencies, such as checking on children in their neighborhoods.
Wells bluntly summed up the dilemma: “Every time an El Cajon officer steps onto the street, they’re breaking one of two laws—federal or state.”
Beyond welfare checks, the city’s complaint demands that California’s sanctuary restrictions be declared invalid and that the attorney general cease enforcing them against local police.
While the attorney general suggested county social‑service agencies could step in when no criminal activity is evident, city leaders rejected the idea, noting that recent county votes barred resources from supporting federal immigration enforcement.
Advocates warn that so‑called “ICE welfare checks” often mask immigration enforcement, creating fear among families and discouraging sponsors from coming forward.
Nevertheless, Wells and Goble argue that a simple question—“Are you okay?”—should not be tangled in immigration politics, insisting that local officers can perform their traditional duties without becoming federal agents.
“All a welfare check on anybody in our city is: Are they okay? If they are, thank you very much,” Goble affirmed, underscoring the city’s resolve to protect children without compromising legal boundaries.
