Description of Issue 

North Korea presents a severe humanitarian crisis, characterized by stringent controls over its citizens’ basic freedoms including movement, speech, health, and access to food. Domestic laws strictly forbid North Koreans from leaving their city or country without government authorization. Those found violating these laws or dissenting against the regime are often imprisoned in detention camps, where they face physical and verbal abuse. Despite these risks, thousands of North Koreans still choose to defect each year, seeking freedom from the oppressive government.

While most North Korean defectors seek refuge in South Korea due to shared ethnicity and language, others head to the United States, drawn by different economic and educational opportunities. However, the U.S. refugee adjudication process is notoriously lengthy and complex, often taking nearly two years. As a result, some North Korean defectors end up living in hiding in the U.S. to avoid the protracted official immigration procedures.

Los Angeles has the largest Korean American population in the U.S., with over 100,000 residents. An estimated 200 former North Koreans settle among them in L.A., though the exact numbers are unknown. They may have personal connections or have heard by word of mouth about L.A.’s prosperous Koreatown. 

Description of Legislation

California solidified its status as a sanctuary state by passing Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), titled the California Values Act, in October 2017. A sanctuary state actively offers political support to undocumented immigrants through an official government capacity. 

SB 54 limits state and federal law enforcement authorities’ cooperation in reporting immigration status. Specifically, it prohibits state or local law enforcement from using resources or personnel “to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.” This includes inquiring into an individual’s immigration status or holding them in custody solely due to federal requests. However, state and local law enforcement agencies may report immigrants who have been convicted of serious or violent felonies in the past 15 years.

Arguments in favor

Protects immigrant communities

SB 54 recognizes immigrants as valuable and essential members of the California community by prohibiting local and state agencies from transferring undocumented people into federal custody. This helps build trust between law enforcement and California residents, regardless of their legal status. The protections may encourage undocumented individuals to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement without fear of deportation. 

Focus on public safety

Proponents of SB 54 also contend that state funding cannot be commandeered to implement federal deportation programs. They advocate for dedicating valuable resources to policing local crimes and protecting the well-being of all residents. 

In addition, SB 54 still allows local agencies to report to ICE any immigrant with a previous conviction from a list of approximately 800 crimes. The policy does not protect criminals, who are still charged, detained, convicted, and sentenced as appropriate.

Supports due process rights

Proponents also claim that SB 54 aligns with the Due Process Clause in the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which mandates the fair treatment of all individuals under the law. By restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities and prohibiting prolonged detention based on only immigration status, the Bill ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rights without due process.

Moreover, such sanctuary policies help reduce the chances of being sued for potential constitutional violations. Several local jurisdictions, including the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, have been charged for unlawfully detaining immigrants in violation of due process procedures to meet Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Courts have awarded thousands of dollars to victims in damages, which these jurisdictions must pay, often without a promise of reimbursement from the federal government.

Arguments against

Conflict with federal law

Opponents assert that SB 54 conflicts with federal immigration law and undermines the Executive Branch’s authority. While states are not obligated to participate in national immigration enforcement activities, federal law (8 USC § 1373) prohibits them from actively obstructing national law enforcement. Sanctuary policies, including SB 54, may violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the Tenth Amendment.

Notably, in March 2018, the Trump Administration sued California by claiming that SB 54 interferes with federal immigration enforcement. However, the federal jury upheld the state’s sanctuary policy, claiming California has the right “to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”

Potential public safety concerns

Critics also argue that limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities under SB 54 poses public safety risks by making it easier for undocumented immigrants with criminal histories to stay in the U.S. In 2023, Border Patrol agents have allegedly encountered thousands of undocumented people with prior criminal convictions, including assault, rape, and murder. The true extent of crimes committed by undocumented individuals is unknown because there have been over 1.5 million unaccounted-for “getaways” since President Biden’s term began. They contend that states’ non-compliance with ICE policies disrupts efforts to identify and detain individuals who pose a threat to public safety.

Potential national security concernsFurthermore, critics express concern that SB 54 may hinder cooperation and information sharing between state and federal law enforcement agencies, which may impede efforts to combat transnational crime and terrorism. They argue that collaboration between local, state, and federal authorities is imperative for effective law enforcement and national security.