California Democrats are under fire for their policies concerning vulnerable immigrant children. This comes after California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office indicated that involving federal authorities in local police welfare checks for unaccompanied minors could go against state law.
Bonta’s alert triggered a significant lawsuit from the city of El Cajon, challenging California’s sanctuary state policy. Local leaders, including Mayor Bill Wells and Councilman Steve Goble, argue that law enforcement is caught in a tough spot: they have to decide between checking on unaccompanied minors identified by federal immigration officials—who might be at risk of exploitation—or leaving them unassisted.
During a meeting with local homeland security officials in February 2025, Goble learned that federal authorities maintained a list of unaccompanied migrant children, which included 52 residing in El Cajon. Authorities suggested that local police could help ensure these children’s safety through welfare checks, prompting Goble to seek advice from Bonta’s office before proceeding.
Wells expressed frustration, saying, “It’s hard to fathom why they would risk children’s safety for their policies.” He criticized the argument that the protection of undocumented individuals takes precedence, even if it leads to serious risks for children. He found their stance to be quite insensitive.
In March 2025, Goble reached out to Bonta’s office, asking if police could conduct checks using information from federal sources, emphasizing the intent to protect all children, irrespective of their immigration status. He referenced concerns about the elevated risks unaccompanied minors face regarding trafficking and exploitation, stressing that timely interventions were crucial.
However, Bonta replied in June 2025, cautioning that local law enforcement performing medical checks based on federal immigration info might violate state laws, specifically SB 54, also known as the California Values Act. His warning included scenarios where officers report findings to federal immigration authorities.
Yet, Goble clarified that the city was not trying to turn the police into immigration agents—merely ensuring children’s safety. He stated, “My primary concern is the safety of the child.”
The dispute over welfare checks is part of a larger legal challenge against Bonta, initiated by El Cajon on April 28, 2026. The city wants California’s sanctuary policies invalidated, arguing they impede local law enforcement from executing their duties. They filed for a preliminary injunction to halt Bonta from enforcing these laws against the city’s police as the case moves forward.
Wells underscored the dilemma faced by El Cajon police, saying they are left breaking either state or federal laws, which he finds untenable. The lawsuit, filed in the San Diego County Court, seeks a declaration against California’s sanctuary limitations and an injunction against Bonta’s enforcement of them.
Bonta’s office responded by suggesting that local child protective services could step in when there is no evidence of criminal activity necessitating police action. However, Wells and Goble countered that the county’s own policy restricts resources from aiding federal immigration enforcement, essentially leaving a gap in welfare checks for unaccompanied minors.
They both voiced skepticism regarding Bonta’s assertion that county officials could serve as neutral parties for welfare checks. Wells expressed doubt, given the political climate surrounding immigration enforcement actions.
Groups advocating for immigrant rights contend that such welfare checks could act as a cover for immigration enforcement. They have previously criticized similar actions under the Trump administration. Nonetheless, Wells and Goble refuted this notion, insisting that local police can prioritize child welfare without inadvertently acting as immigration officials.
Every welfare check, Goble reiterated, is simply about ensuring safety—“Are you OK? If so, have a good day.” He emphasized that their goal is enabling officers to perform fundamental safety functions without contravening state law.
Despite attempts to reach Bonta’s office, the Department of Homeland Security, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for comment, responses were not received prior to publication.
