Oroville, a town of nearly 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, officials said, did not violate the state’s sanctuary law.
The symbolic move demonstrates how California towns and cities that supported President Donald Trump in his November victory have become increasingly empowered to challenge the state’s pro-immigrant laws, which residents in those areas see as anti-public safety.
Butte County supported Trump in the recent election, with 50% of the vote going to him versus 47% for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.
Oroville’s seven-member council unanimously approved the resolution on Tuesday. It declares Oroville “a non-sanctuary city for all criminals,” expresses 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 don’t want to harbor or provide refuge for anyone who has engaged in criminal activity, whatever it may be,” Oroville Mayor David Pittman told the Chronicle. Pittman stated that the city has almost no unauthorized immigrant population that he is aware of, but that fear of crimes committed by such migrants is “more people’s perception.”
Immigration offenses, such as unlawful presence in the United States, are classified as civil rather than criminal.
In 2017, California passed the California Values Act, a sanctuary state law that prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.
Local and state law enforcement officers are limited in their ability to turn over a person in jail to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal agency in charge of deportations. Exceptions include individuals who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony.
Sanctuary laws do not prevent local law enforcement from enforcing criminal law, nor do they preclude cooperation with federal law enforcement.
Pittman stated that the city would continue to follow the California Values Act, and that the resolution was amended during Tuesday’s meeting to remove a line directing the city administrator and chief of police to implement “non-sanctuary” status for fear of putting city employees in a “precarious” position. The resolution states that the city will comply with California’s sanctuary law.
Huntington Beach in Los Angeles County also passed a non-sanctuary resolution last month, following the filing of a lawsuit challenging California’s sanctuary law in early January.
The coastal city had already lost a legal battle to be exempt from California’s sanctuary laws in 2020. Pittman said Oroville is considering joining the new lawsuit.
San Francisco has a sanctuary law and, like California, has come under fire from the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with his mass deportation agenda.
San Francisco responded with a lawsuit last month. During his first term, Trump attempted to cut off federal funding to San Francisco for its sanctuary law, but federal courts ruled in the city’s favor.
Sanctuary laws, according to advocates, increase trust in law enforcement and unauthorized immigrants’ willingness to report crimes and cooperate with police without fear of immigration repercussions.
However, opponents, including Oroville Council Member Scott Thomson, who spearheaded the initiative, argue that repeat criminal offenders who are in the country illegally should be turned over to federal immigration authorities.
“The resolution is not about politics,” Thomson stated at the Council meeting. “It is about protecting our residents from dangerous criminals who, under SB54, are frequently released back into our communities rather than being turned over to ICE.”
We’ve repeatedly seen sanctuary policies prioritize criminal rights 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 claims legislates with urban metropolitan areas in mind.
He stated that he has nothing against immigrants and that he used to work in construction with illegal immigrants who were the “salt of the earth.”
His opposition, he stated, is directed toward people who commit crimes regardless of immigration status.
“We’re not all just right-wing nut jobs here,” he told me.
Oroville has previously taken symbolic stands against both the state and federal government. In 2021, the City Council declared Oroville a “constitutional republic” to oppose COVID-19 regulations and refused to enforce federal or state orders it deemed “overreaching” and violating “constitutionally protected rights.”
During the Council meeting on Tuesday, a third-generation Oroville resident named Kimberly Mitchell spoke out against the resolution, citing research that shows immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.
“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 told the crowd. “Of the issues Oroville is facing, I think immigration is not one of them.”
