Local officials across the Bay Area are developing strategies to protect immigrant communities as the Trump administration considers deploying federal immigration enforcement agents to the region, with some municipalities taking aggressive protective measures while others adopt more cautious approaches.
The administration recently canceled planned enforcement operations in the Bay Area after President Donald Trump was persuaded by tech executives to call off an immigration enforcement surge in San Francisco. However, the threat of future operations has prompted municipalities to accelerate preparation efforts.
Santa Clara County is leading regional efforts with a comprehensive Immigration Enforcement Response Plan Framework county officials presented at a Board of Supervisors meeting Oct. 25. The three-stage plan outlines how the county would respond to four defined levels of federal enforcement activity, ranging from targeted arrests to mass raids.
The framework was developed in partnership with community organizations and informed by best practices shared by officials in Los Angeles County, which has endured mass federal enforcement activities since June. It would restrict immigration enforcement activities on county properties, including parking lots, modeling an approach used in Chicago.
“We have no obligation to the immigration enforcement activities that they are responsible for,” said Sylvia Arenas, county for District 1. “It is terrible that we have to get to this point where we are delineating that we control our properties, and we restrict immigration enforcement activities on our properties.”
The measure would require signage informing the public that immigration enforcement is restricted on county property.
“This referral really is in conjunction with council members from the city [San Jose] who really wanted to duplicate what they saw in Chicago,” Arenas said. “That is just to be bold about what it is that we allow and don’t allow on our properties.”
The measure aims to prevent county properties from being used for staging, processing or surveillance related to immigration enforcement operations. The initiative also includes informing business owners of their rights and creating designated private spaces on county property.
“Current local policies do not explicitly restrict federal immigration enforcement agencies from using county-owned land or facilities for operations, staging or surveillance,” Arenas wrote in her referral to county staff. “Without such protections, county assets may be inadvertently weaponized against the very communities we are sworn to serve—eroding trust in local government.”
Arenas emphasised that county personnel were not being directed to obstruct lawful federal activity.
“Obviously it is not prohibited, because we will follow the law,” she said. “If there is a warrant, a legal warrant for somebody, obviously those agents can come onsite to the property and detain the person that they are looking for.”
Analilia Garcia, director of the Division of Equity and Social Justice, stressed “the importance of coordinated clear and compassionate messaging to the community” in her presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
“In Stage 3 of the workplan, we focus on the post-event process, and really shifting the attention and focus to community restoration and healing,” she said, emphasising the need to collaborate with community partners on family reunification, behavioral health and trauma services, ensuring affected children remain in school, and supporting county employees who may be affected.
Local balancing act
The cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy are taking a more relaxed approach to the immigration enforcement issue, with Morgan Hill Mayor Mark Turner expressing a desire to balance community protection with public safety concerns.
“While it remains essential to uphold the principles of fairness and due process, we must also be mindful of the need to protect public safety,” Turner said. “Our laws and policies should strive to balance these values, ensuring they do not unintentionally shield individuals who pose a genuine threat to our communities.
“We cannot give safe harbor to those involved in violent crimes, including sexual offenses, homicide, human trafficking, assault and armed robbery.”
Turner noted that Morgan Hill’s police department follows federal and state laws restricting local law enforcement participation in immigration enforcement. However, the city is not directly coordinating with Santa Clara County or neighboring municipalities on immigration enforcement response planning, and has no plans to put new protections in place.
“All members of our community are valued regardless of immigration status,” Turner said. “The City of Morgan Hill, including its elected and appointed officials, will continue to work proactively to protect and defend the rights and privileges of everyone in the city.”
Gilroy Mayor Greg Bozzo echoed that his city would not be making any changes to its existing approach to federal immigration matters in spite of escalating threats to undocumented residents.
“The City of Gilroy remains committed to the well-being of all its residents, regardless of immigration status,” Bozzo said. “The city does not typically assist the federal government in its daily routine operations. We plan to continue operating as we always have, protecting the safety and well-being of our residents.”
Santa Clara County is home to about 119,000 undocumented immigrants, according to an estimate by the Migration Policy Institute. As local municipalities refine their response strategies to federal threats, the Trump administration continues to cultivate uncertainty regarding when or where it will deploy immigration enforcement agents.
