SouthernWorldwide.com – California Democrats are facing accusations that the state’s sanctuary policies are jeopardizing the welfare of vulnerable migrant children by hindering necessary checks.
This scrutiny arises after the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a warning. The warning suggests that local police conducting welfare visits on unaccompanied minors, especially when using information from federal authorities, could potentially violate state law.
The statement from Bonta has ignited a significant debate, becoming a central point in a broader lawsuit. The City of El Cajon has filed this lawsuit against California’s sanctuary state policies.
City officials, including Mayor Bill Wells and City Councilman Steve Goble, contend that the state’s directives place law enforcement in an untenable situation. They are forced to decide whether to investigate potentially vulnerable children flagged by federal immigration authorities, risking a violation of state law, or to leave these unaccompanied minors unchecked.
Councilman Goble had previously reached out to Bonta’s office in March 2025. He inquired whether local police could conduct these welfare checks using contact details provided by federal agencies. Goble emphasized the city’s commitment to ensuring all children’s safety, irrespective of their citizenship or residency status.
In his letter, Goble highlighted concerns raised by the inspector general regarding unaccompanied minors being at a heightened risk. These risks include trafficking, exploitation, and forced labor. He stressed that swift action is crucial in determining the safety of these children.
In response, Bonta’s office issued a letter in June 2025. This letter cautioned that local law enforcement conducting wellness checks, particularly those based on or alongside information from federal immigration authorities, might be engaging in conduct prohibited by SB 54. SB 54 is also known as the California Values Act.
According to Bonta’s letter, such violations could occur if officers were to confirm location details provided by ICE or report the outcomes of their checks back to federal immigration authorities.
The dispute over welfare checks is just one facet of a larger legal challenge initiated by El Cajon. The city filed a lawsuit against Bonta on April 28, 2026, seeking relief from California’s sanctuary policies. These policies significantly impact how local law enforcement operates, including SB 54, the TRUST Act, and the TRUTH Act.
In a motion filed on May 20, the city requested a preliminary injunction. They asked the court to temporarily prevent Bonta from enforcing these laws against El Cajon while the case is ongoing. The city argues that these policies are preempted by federal immigration law and force local police to choose between state restrictions and federal responsibilities.
The preliminary injunction motion specifically references the exchange between Goble and Bonta. It cites this as an example of how California’s sanctuary laws allegedly impede El Cajon officers from performing “basic public safety work.” The filing asserts that the state’s legal framework compels officers to spend time navigating complex legal interpretations rather than promptly addressing public safety concerns, including child welfare checks.
El Cajon’s lawsuit extends beyond just welfare checks. The April 28 complaint broadly urges a San Diego County court to declare California’s sanctuary restrictions invalid. It also seeks to halt Bonta from enforcing them against the El Cajon police department.
Bonta’s office, in their June 2025 response, stated that they “share” El Cajon’s concerns for children potentially at risk. However, they suggested that county social service agencies might have a role to play when there is no evidence of criminal activity necessitating law enforcement involvement.
Mayor Wells and Councilman Goble have contested this suggestion. They argue that Bonta’s proposed solution overlooks a significant development: San Diego County’s vote in December 2024 to restrict county resources from assisting federal immigration enforcement.
Wells further expressed his difficulty in accepting Bonta’s suggestion that county agencies could act as a neutral intermediary for welfare checks based on federal information. “This is the same county we would be deferring to, to check on these kids,” Wells stated. “They’re not neutral. They’ve been very, very clear.”
Nationally, immigrant-rights advocates have voiced concerns that ICE “welfare checks” on unaccompanied migrant children could effectively function as immigration enforcement disguised as child safety measures. The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights has characterized the Trump administration’s ICE “wellness checks” as harmful enforcement “in disguise.” Other advocates have warned that visits from DHS can deter sponsors from coming forward or expose families to fears of deportation.
However, Wells and Goble reject this characterization. They maintain that local police could conduct welfare checks without reporting any immigration violations discovered during the visit.
“That doesn’t make us federal immigration officers,” Wells asserted. “It just means that our officers could do their job like they’ve always done in the past before this unconstitutional law of SB 54 was passed.”
“All a welfare check on anybody in our city, regardless of immigration status, is: Are they okay?” Goble added. “If they are, thank you very much. Have a good day. See you later.”
Wells clarified that the lawsuit is not aimed at deputizing local police as immigration agents. Instead, it seeks to ensure that officers can carry out essential public safety duties without encountering legal conflicts with state law.
