The cost of California’s ‘sanctuary’ policies — in human lives
California’s “sanctuary” policies restrict the degree to which local law enforcement can work with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It is a policy that has a terrible cost in human lives.
One life was that of Todd Stewart, 68 years old. He was a retired engineer, a father of two, and a longtime resident of his quiet neighborhood in Martinez, Calif.
On Aug. 6, prosecutors say Stewart encountered a burglar in his home garage and was stabbed to death.
Unfortunately, California’s state law created a system that would ultimately fail Todd Stewart. The man charged with Stewart’s alleged murder, Marcos Iriarte-Valdez, encountered the criminal justice system and was known to federal immigration authorities, but California’s sanctuary policies worked in Iriarte-Valdez’s favor.
Nearly 11 months before this attack, ICE lodged an immigration detainer against Iriarte-Valdez identifying him as a Venezuelan national with Spanish citizenship who was unlawfully present in the United States. Despite this detainer, and in deference to California’s sanctuary laws, ICE was not alerted to the release of Iriarte-Valdez after he had allegedly committed several crimes.
In fact, Iriarte-Valdez was already facing three felony burglary charges involving occupied residences, and had been taken back into custody for allegedly violating the conditions of his home detention. Yet on Aug. 5, a Contra Costa County judge released him on his own recognizance.
Todd Stewart was murdered the next day.
This is the predictable result of policies that prevent local authorities from notifying ICE when a suspect with an active detainer and serious criminal charges is released.
As of early 2026, the Department of Homeland Security noted that California had failed to honor over 4,500 deportation “detainer” requests. In San Diego County, the Sheriff’s Department has rejected over 80% of requests for inmate release dates to ICE.
As mayor of El Cajon, I have been clear about where I stand. Local law enforcement should be able to do their job, protect their communities, and work with federal authorities.
Yet California’s sanctuary policies, including the infamous Senate Bill 54, have placed unnecessary restrictions on that cooperation, limiting the ability of local communities to make public safety decisions for themselves.
To add insult to injury here in San Diego County, Sheriff Kelly Martinez just announced that ICE will no longer be allowed to use sheriff’s facilities for training or firearms qualifications, citing “community concerns.”
While US Customs and Border Protection will continue to have access to the Otay Range, the decision to expel ICE further limits practical cooperation with the very federal agency charged with removing people who are in the country illegally and pose a public safety threat.
Our local leaders cannot claim to prioritize public safety while steadily narrowing the ability of law enforcement to work with ICE.
El Cajon has experienced this conflict firsthand. That is why our city, with the support of the America First Policy Institute, is challenging California’s sanctuary policies in court.
The heart of our case is a simple question: Why should Sacramento prevent local governments from cooperating with federal authorities to enforce federal law?
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to the Stewart case has been to point the finger at the federal government. His office insists nothing in California law stops ICE from enforcing federal immigration law.
But that avoids the real issue. No one claims California can prevent ICE from enforcing the law. The real issue is whether California’s state law should prevent local law enforcement from sharing basic information with federal authorities when someone is in custody, has an active detainer, and is about to be released.
Opposition to sanctuary policies is not opposition to immigration, and America has welcomed generations of legal immigrants who have made this country stronger. El Cajon is an incredibly diverse community, and I am proud of that.
The question here is much more basic: When someone who is in this country illegally repeatedly commits crimes, why would we make it harder for local police to work with federal authorities to remove that person?
Todd Stewart’s murder should force lawmakers in Sacramento to confront that question. Cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities should not be treated as a political statement. When it comes to repeat offenders and people accused of serious crimes, it is a public safety tool.
For years, California politicians have defended sanctuary policies in the name of compassion. But our first obligation as elected officials is to protect the people we serve.
Todd Stewart deserved better.
Posts
