Fremont’s Immigration Dilemma: When Sanctuary Policies Put Politics Over Public Safety
In February 2025, as President Donald Trump ramped up immigration enforcement efforts nationwide, the City of Fremont issued a carefully worded statement that revealed the impossible position California’s sanctuary state laws have created for local governments. While claiming to focus on “the safety and well-being of our local community,” Fremont’s policy essentially ties the hands of local law enforcement while federal authorities work to remove criminal aliens from American streets.
The statement was a masterclass in political double-speak: Fremont cannot use city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement, but city employees also cannot obstruct federal agents. In other words, Fremont must stand aside while federal authorities do the job that should be a shared responsibility between all levels of government—protecting American citizens from those who entered the country illegally and, in some cases, committed additional crimes.
This isn’t just a Fremont problem. It’s a California problem. And it perfectly illustrates why sanctuary policies—however well-intentioned—fundamentally undermine the rule of law and put American communities at risk.
The Legal Framework: California’s Sanctuary State Law
To understand Fremont’s position, we must first examine California’s sanctuary state law, Senate Bill 54 (the “California Values Act”), passed in 2017. This legislation prohibits state and local law enforcement from using resources for immigration enforcement, with limited exceptions. The law restricts when and how local police can communicate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, transfer individuals to federal custody, or share information about release dates for criminal aliens.
Fremont’s 11-page police department policy on immigration violations reflects these state-mandated restrictions. While the policy outlines circumstances under which officers may interact with immigration enforcement, it operates within the constraints of California’s sanctuary framework.
The result? A patchwork system where federal authorities must work around—rather than with—local law enforcement, making everyone less safe in the process.
The Federal Response: The Laken Riley Act
On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law, marking his first legislative victory of his second term. The law, which passed with bipartisan support (though most Democrats ultimately opposed it), mandates federal detention of illegal immigrants accused of theft, burglary, larceny, shoplifting, or assaulting law enforcement officers.
The act was named for Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Georgia nursing student brutally murdered in February 2024 by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan national who entered the United States illegally. Ibarra had been arrested multiple times before killing Riley but was released due to sanctuary policies and prosecutorial discretion. Her death was entirely preventable—a tragic consequence of immigration policies that prioritize ideology over citizen safety.
“She was a light of warmth and kindness,” President Trump said during the signing ceremony, attended by Riley’s grieving family. “It’s a tremendous tribute to your daughter what’s taking place today, that’s all I can say. It’s so sad we have to be doing it.”
At the same ceremony, Trump announced plans to use the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to house “the worst criminal aliens”—individuals who pose such serious threats that they require maximum security detention pending deportation.
The Conservative Case Against Sanctuary Policies
From a conservative perspective, sanctuary policies violate several core principles that should guide governance in a free society:
1. Rule of Law and Equal Justice
Immigration law is federal law. When states and localities refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, they’re not exercising legitimate federalism—they’re engaging in selective nullification. Conservatives who believe in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause should recognize that federal immigration law must be enforced uniformly across all states.
Would we tolerate states refusing to cooperate with federal enforcement of tax law, securities fraud, or civil rights violations? Of course not. Immigration law deserves the same respect.
2. Public Safety and Community Protection
The primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens. When local jurisdictions release criminal aliens back onto the streets rather than transferring them to federal custody, they’re prioritizing the interests of foreign nationals who violated our laws over the safety of American residents.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, federal authorities have arrested thousands of criminal aliens with prior convictions for serious offenses including assault, sexual crimes, drug trafficking, and homicide. In September 2025, ICE arrested a criminal alien in California with 49 prior criminal arrests—49!—who had been repeatedly released back into the community by sanctuary jurisdictions.
These aren’t isolated incidents. They represent a systemic failure to prioritize American safety.
3. Fiscal Responsibility and Taxpayer Interests
California is home to approximately 1.85 million undocumented immigrants—the largest population of any state. The fiscal costs are staggering: emergency healthcare, education, criminal justice, and social services all strain state and local budgets.
Fremont’s average household income is $175,000, meaning residents pay substantial state and local taxes. These taxpayers have every right to expect their resources will be used to support legal residents and citizens, not to shield those who violated immigration law from federal enforcement.
Conservative fiscal principles demand accountability: if someone enters the country illegally and commits crimes, why should American taxpayers bear the ongoing costs of their presence?
4. Respect for Legal Immigration
Perhaps most importantly, sanctuary policies are profoundly unfair to the millions of immigrants who followed the rules. Legal immigrants—who waited years, paid thousands in fees, passed background checks, and proved they wouldn’t be public charges—watch as illegal immigrants receive protection from the very laws legal immigrants respected.
This isn’t compassion. It’s rewarding lawbreaking while punishing those who played by the rules.
The Alameda County Context: Voters Demand Change
Fremont doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The city is part of Alameda County, where voters in November 2024 recalled District Attorney Pamela Price by a decisive 62.9% to 37.1% margin. While the recall centered primarily on Price’s soft-on-crime policies and refusal to seek enhanced sentencing, it reflected broader frustration with progressive prosecutors who prioritize criminal defendants over victims and public safety.
The recall’s overwhelming success—in a solidly Democratic county—demonstrates that even liberal voters have limits. When ideology produces dangerous results, Americans of all political persuasions demand accountability.
Fremont’s residents are part of this broader electorate. They see the connection between lax enforcement policies and declining public safety. They understand that sanctuary policies aren’t compassionate—they’re reckless.
The Impossible Position of Local Law Enforcement
Fremont’s February 2025 statement reveals the bind California has placed on local police departments. Officers are prohibited from using city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement, yet they also cannot obstruct federal agents. This creates absurd scenarios:
- If ICE agents request information about when a criminal alien will be released from local custody, Fremont cannot provide it
- If federal agents arrive to take custody of a criminal alien, Fremont cannot prevent the transfer
- If ICE asks Fremont police to temporarily detain someone with a deportation order, the city must refuse
This isn’t cooperation—it’s passive resistance. And it makes everyone’s job harder while making communities less safe.
Local law enforcement officers understand this better than anyone. They know the criminals they arrest today may be back on the streets tomorrow if sanctuary policies prevent transfer to federal custody. They see the same offenders cycling through the system repeatedly. And they bear the frustration of being prevented from fully protecting their communities.
What Fremont Should Do: A Path Forward
Fremont’s leadership faces a choice: continue following California’s sanctuary state law, or take a stand for common sense and public safety. Here’s what a conservative approach would look like:
1. Advocate for State Law Reform
Fremont’s elected officials should join with other California cities in calling for repeal or substantial reform of SB 54. State Senator Brian Jones has introduced SB 554 to overhaul California’s sanctuary state law with reasonable limitations. Fremont should support this effort.
2. Maximize Cooperation Within Legal Limits
While state law restricts certain cooperation, Fremont should ensure it’s doing everything legally permissible to assist federal immigration enforcement. This includes promptly notifying ICE when serious criminal aliens are in custody and ensuring federal agents have access to detention facilities.
3. Prioritize Transparency
Fremont should regularly report to residents about immigration-related incidents in the city, including crimes committed by individuals in the country illegally. Taxpayers deserve to know how sanctuary policies affect their community.
4. Support Federal Enforcement
When federal immigration enforcement operations occur in Fremont, city officials should publicly support these efforts rather than issuing vague statements about “complexity.” Leadership means clearly stating that federal law will be enforced and that criminal aliens will be removed.
The Broader Principle: Sovereignty Matters
At its core, this debate is about sovereignty—the fundamental right of a nation to control its borders and determine who may enter and remain. Every sovereign nation exercises this right. It’s not cruel, xenophobic, or un-American. It’s basic governance.
Sanctuary policies undermine American sovereignty by creating zones where immigration law effectively doesn’t apply. They send a message to the world that if you can reach certain American cities, you’ll be protected from federal law enforcement. This incentivizes illegal immigration and makes border security exponentially more difficult.
Conservative principles recognize that borders aren’t arbitrary lines—they define the political community and determine who has the rights and responsibilities of membership. A nation that cannot or will not control its borders will not remain a nation for long.
Conclusion: Choosing Safety Over Ideology
Fremont’s immigration policy statement in February 2025 was carefully crafted to satisfy California’s sanctuary state law while avoiding direct confrontation with federal authorities. But careful wording cannot obscure the fundamental problem: sanctuary policies prioritize politics over public safety.
The residents of Fremont—like Americans across the country—deserve better. They deserve a government that puts their safety first, that respects the rule of law, and that recognizes the difference between compassion and enabling lawlessness.
Laken Riley’s murder was a preventable tragedy. Jose Ibarra should never have been in the United States, and he certainly shouldn’t have been released back onto the streets after multiple arrests. Her death stands as a stark reminder that immigration policy has real consequences for real people.
Every day that sanctuary policies remain in effect, more American communities are put at risk. Every criminal alien who is released rather than deported represents another potential victim. And every local government that prioritizes sanctuary ideology over citizen safety fails in its most basic responsibility.
Fremont can do better. California can do better. And America deserves leaders who will choose public safety over political correctness, every single time.
Call to Action
Your safety shouldn’t be a political football. Contact Fremont’s City Council and demand they prioritize resident safety over sanctuary ideology. Ask your state representatives to support SB 554 and reform California’s dangerous sanctuary state law. Share this article with friends and neighbors who care about public safety and the rule of law. Subscribe to stay informed about immigration enforcement in your community—because what you don’t know can hurt you. The choice between safety and sanctuary is clear. Make sure your elected officials choose wisely.
