In 2017, faced with President Donald Trump’s threat to crack down on illegal immigration, Gavin Newsom urged his fellow Democrats to fight back with “sanctuary policies” aimed to shield immigrants in the country without authorization from deportations.

“You are looking at the poster child for sanctuary policy,” Newsom, then California’s lieutenant governor, said on one of his gubernatorial campaign stops that year. He touted his record as former mayor of San Francisco, which has for decades limited local law enforcement’s participation in federal immigration operations.

“What the heck is wrong with the Democratic Party that we don’t have the courage to stand up for it?” Newsom said. “…It’s about people. And it’s about a fundamental principle about trust.”

But the once-vocal Trump critic has now grown quieter: As Trump again promises sweeping deportations, Newsom has avoided the word “sanctuary” after frequently evoking it during Trump’s first term. He’s had vetoed before — and now promised to veto again — legislation that would expand “sanctuary” protections to immigrants in state custody.

Newsom is among many prominent California Democrats taking a more muted tone on immigration while working to preserve existing protections for immigrants in the state without legal authorization, instead of expanding them to include more people in state prison.

Their reluctance comes as Trump returns to the White House more determined and experienced to fulfill his campaign promises: He has pledged to carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history.” He has also threatened to prosecute local officials who decline to help federal authorities carry out deportations and withhold federal funding from “sanctuary” cities and states — at a time when the January wildfires made California more dependent on federal aid for disaster recovery.

This week California Republicans introduced legislation to preempt local ordinances from going beyond the state’s 2017 “sanctuary law” protections, and to require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities for those convicted of violent crimes and certain other misdemeanors. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of San Diego told KQED that he’s spoken to some Democratic colleagues and the reaction has been “more positive than I expected.”

The hesitance among Democrats to speak up as boldly about immigration could also reflect shifting voter sentiment, experts say. Last year, a Gallup poll found that more than half of Americans said they wanted to see immigration to the United States decrease — the first time since 2005 that a majority of its survey respondents held that view. More recent polls find that how people feel about deporting unauthorized immigrants often hinges on how the deportations are carried out and who are targeted. Most polls do show a majority of Americans want such immigrants deported if they’re convicted of violent crimes.

Democrats nationwide — who have for more than a decade taken a “staunchly pro-immigration” stance “without any recognition of possible compromise” — may be pivoting on the issue, said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California.

“The discussion of the day, immediately post the 2024 election, was this focus about Democrats getting it wrong on the economy and on immigration,” Romero said. “…I think they are hedging their bets by staying quiet on an issue that they are … seeing how it plays out and people’s reactions to it.”

But it’s a balancing act for those California Democrats: While there may be political benefits in staying put, the lack of a forceful response to Trump’s immigration policies may risk alienating base voters and drawing primary challenges from the left.

“By not speaking out, these local officials are potentially risking not getting re-elected,” said Loren Collingwood, a professor at the University of New Mexico who specializes in sanctuary city laws.

The lack of more vocal resistance among Democratic leaders has already drawn criticism from some progressives.

“I think it’s disgusting, everything that’s going on, and it’s also sad to hear that a lot of our elected officials are hesitant,” said San Jose City Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who championed a resolution earlier this month to reaffirm the city’s “sanctuary” ordinance protecting undocumented immigrants.

“Now is not the time for Democratic leadership to second guess what’s right,” he said. “Abraham Lincoln didn’t do a poll to see if it was popular to free the slaves. We’ve got to have individuals stand for what’s right, and not for what’s popular.”

Sanctuary: A highly politicized word

While there’s no legal definition of “sanctuary” policies, they generally mean policies prohibiting the use of local or state government resources to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

In 1971, Berkeley became the first sanctuary city to provide refuge for sailors who protested the Vietnam War. And in the 1980s, churches declared themselves sanctuaries for Central American refugees when then-President Ronald Reagan attempted to deny them asylum.

But the term has been highly politicized in recent years, especially as Trump began targeting sanctuary cities during his first term. In resistance to Trump’s threats, the state passed a “sanctuary state” law in 2017 to prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities in most cases, except when the immigrants here illegally are convicted of certain crimes, mostly felonies and violent offenses.

“It became politicized because it has become the linchpin here, the bulwark against threats of mass deportation,” said Angela Chan, an assistant chief attorney at the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office who co-authored the city’s “sanctuary” ordinance as well as California’s “sanctuary state” law, which took effect in 2018 in resistance to Trump’s immigration policies.

“Under Trump, he has taken the politicization to a new level,” Chan said.

“Now is not the time for Democratic leadership to second guess what’s right. Abraham Lincoln didn’t do a poll to see if it was popular to free the slaves.”
— San Jose City Councilmember Peter Ortiz

During Trump’s first term, Newsom was a keen advocate for sanctuary policies. Soon after Trump was elected, Newsom urged California’s state universities to declare themselves “sanctuary campuses” for undocumented immigrant students. He called Trump a “bully” and praised the state for passing its sanctuary state law “in the face of the Trump administration.” He touted San Francisco’s sanctuary city ordinances, saying that he had made a mistake in his mayoral tenure to ignore the policies and order local law enforcement to turn over young in-custody immigrants without legal authorization to federal immigration agents.

In his inaugural speech in 2019, the new governor urged California to become “a house that provides shelter to all who need it and sanctuary to all who seek it.”

This year, Newsom has all but distanced himself from the rhetoric. At his request, the state Legislature approved $50 million in spending to “Trump-proof” California, including $25 million to provide immigrants with legal services. But even in promoting that, Newsom stressed that the funding was not meant to shield those convicted of felonies, urging state lawmakers to clarify it if needed.

“His record speaks for itself,” said Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo in an email, after CalMatters asked Newsom’s office about the governor’s tonal shift.

The California Democratic Party has not said much either. Party spokesperson Robin Swanson said the party has “uplifted voices from our elected leaders” and pointed to posts from Democratic officials it has reposted to promote educational training and statements about mass deportations.

The only public comment the party made online was from Yvette Martinez, its executive director, who stressed the party’s general support for immigrants, in a way that left ambiguous whether the party was referring to those who immigrated illegally.

“The California Democratic Party remains committed to protecting and uplifting all communities, recognizing that our state’s strength and prosperity are deeply rooted in the contributions of immigrants,” Martinez said in a Feb. 3 social media post.

In 2017, however, then party-chair Eric Bauman was loud in his support for the sanctuary state law. He deemed the use of state resources to deport undocumented immigrants “unconscionable and dangerously corrosive to the trust law enforcement needs from the community to keep Californians safe.”

“Californians welcome our undocumented brothers and sisters,” he said.

When asked why the party has been less vocal this year on sanctuary policies, party chair Rusty Hicks did not answer the question but said in a statement instead: “California Democrats stand with our hardworking immigrant Californians who help move the Golden State forward.”

Mayors of some of the most liberal cities have also backed away from talk of sanctuary ordinances.

In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie declined to sign a non-binding resolution to reaffirm the city’s sanctuary ordinance, arguing it’s his policy not to “comment or act on urging resolutions.”

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who deemed San Jose a “welcoming city,” told CalMatters in a statement “the term ‘sanctuary’ doesn’t have a clear legal definition and has become politicized by both ends of the ideological spectrum.”

But he stood by the city’s policies to not assist in federal immigration sweeps. “That’s because whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or anything in between, the fundamental responsibility of government is keeping people safe,” he said. “And our police department can’t do that if people are scared to call 911 or bear witness to a crime.”

‘Hedging their bets’ on immigration

Efforts to expand protections for unauthorized immigrants in California have been non-starters.

Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Los Angeles Democrat, has unsuccessfully pushed for a bill to prevent state correctional officers from helping federal immigration authorities deport immigrants here illegally in custody — legislation Newsom previously vetoed.

The city of Los Angeles adopted a sanctuary city ordinance in December, but within two weeks, the city council revised the policy to exempt unauthorized immigrants convicted of serious felonies from the protections — largely in line with the state law.

City officials and state lawmakers are holding the line against Trump’s immigration policies as they face more aggressive threats from his administration.

The president tried to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities during his first term. While a federal court initially blocked it, a higher court reversed the decision in 2019, arguing it was legal to give applicants who cooperated with immigration authorities preferential treatment.

Cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities could take away billions of dollars from California’s biggest cities, whose budgets rely in part on federal money. San Francisco, for example, stands to lose as much as $3 billion in federal funding, according to a lawsuit the city filed against the Trump administration, challenging Trump’s threat to withhold dollars from sanctuary cities.

“(Trump) has Republican control of the House and the Senate, and he has said and already shown that he’s serious about enacting many of the policies that he pledged during his campaign,” Romero said. “And he’s doing it aggressively.”

“The Democrats got dominated, got drenched during the past election, so I think everyone’s still licking the wounds and recovering from the defeat.”
— San Francisco political consultant David Ho

But the largely muted response to Trump among Democrats may also be a signal that they are recalibrating their messaging on immigration after seeing its base moving rightward during the presidential election, partly fueled by the aggressive Republican outreach on immigration, experts say.

“The Democrats got dominated, got drenched during the past election, so I think everyone’s still licking the wounds and recovering from the defeat,” said David Ho, a longtime San Francisco political consultant.

During the election, Trump and his loyalists dialed up fears over illegal immigration by making it “about life and death,” Romero said.

“The narrative that was pushed wasn’t just ‘We shouldn’t have immigrants breaking the law by coming into our country illegally.’ It wasn’t about hurting your economy,” she said. “It was ‘they are going to hurt your family and maybe kill your daughter.’”

Democrats, however, did not put on much of an effective defense to counter that narrative, Collingwood said. “All (voters) are hearing is this negative information about the border. …And that’s all basically saying ‘immigrants are dangerous, immigrants are scary.’ We don’t know who they are, and you don’t have the flip-side narrative.”

While there isn’t enough post-election polling to show how much immigration swung voters toward Trump, it’s not a chance Democrats want to take, Romero said.

“We are in a shifting environment,” she said. “And on top of that, the Democrats … are conscious of not sounding like they are just against everything. If you are against everything, you lose the ability for people sometimes to listen.”

But by not speaking up more forcefully for immigrant protections, some Democrats may risk frustrating their base.

“It’s puzzling for local officials in particular blue cities and urban cores … to shy away from a core Democratic issue around immigrant rights,” Ho said. “To be the mayor of a major city like San Francisco, where we have a long history of civil rights struggle and gains, I do expect our leaders to be much more vocal and intentional.”

Drawing a line with ‘the bad guys’

Democratic leaders nationwide — including former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris — also shifted toward a more forceful tone on illegal immigration, with Biden and Harris advocating for more executive power to shut down the southern border.

In California, Democrats have long debated where to draw the line on protecting immigrants from deportations. In 2017, the bill to establish “sanctuary state” policies split Democratic lawmakers, with some supporting the exclusion of people convicted of certain crimes from the state’s protection. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat and a former prosecutor, said at the time the state shouldn’t shield immigrants if they assaulted a peace officer.

“I’ve been a champion of immigrants,” he said in 2017. “I’ve supported legal and undocumented immigrants, but I draw the line with the bad guys.”

When asked this week whether he continues to distinguish law-abiding immigrants from those with a criminal background, Muratsuchi told CalMatters “I don’t have any problem with deporting serious and violent criminals.”

Muratsuchi declined to elaborate further or comment on how the state or cities should react to Trump’s immigration policies. But this year, he did introduce Assembly Bill 49, which would limit federal immigration authorities from accessing schools and daycare centers without a warrant.

Some city officials have also stressed that they do not wish to shield criminals from federal law enforcement.

“My general view is if you are in our city or country and you’re undocumented, and you’re committing serious or violent crimes, you should be deported and I don’t think that’s very controversial,” Mahan, the San Jose mayor, said in a CNN interview. And following an immigration raid last month, Mahan said he hopes federal immigration authorities target “violent and serious criminals” instead of “law-abiding” residents.

Efforts to make that distinction have upset some immigrant advocacy groups and progressive Democrats.

An earlier draft of San Jose’s sanctuary city resolution — adopted earlier this month — emphasized the city’s intent to protect “law-abiding” residents. Ortiz, the councilmember, proposed to scratch that during a Feb. 4 city council meeting.

“I … worry that this language plays on a false premise debunked time and time again that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than native-born citizens despite (the) opposite being proven true,” he said.

Rhetoric distinguishing “criminals” from “law-abiding” residents could risk stigmatizing the already vulnerable undocumented immigrant community, said Andrea Guerrero, executive director of advocacy group Alliance San Diego. Regardless of their criminal records, she argued, they enjoy Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.

“It’s divisive politics. It’s feeding into stereotypes,” Guerrero said. “More than anything, it’s creating this idea that there are people worthy of constitutional protections and there are people who are not worthy. And the second we go down the road … we are weakening the strength of (the constitution) and the strength of our democracy.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.