In 2018, when Rep. Mike Levin (D-49) was first elected to his North San Diego County congressional district, progressive advocates took him on a tour of a shelter for asylum seekers near the border.
“He was very receptive,” said Caroline Theiss-Aird, of Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad. “I feel like he represented himself as someone who was supportive.”
But whatever good feelings Theiss-Aird and other advocates had for Levin have diminished in the weeks following his vote for a controversial immigration law.
Levin was the only Democrat in San Diego — and one of just three in California — to vote for the Laken Riley Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law late last month.
Among other things, the law directs federal officials to detain and deport immigrants without legal status who have been arrested with minor theft or shoplifting crimes — even if they are not charged or convicted.
It applies to children and people with protected status like those who are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which granted temporary protections to people without legal status who were brought to the U.S. when they were children.
“I am very disappointed in Rep. Levin,” Pastor Madison Shockley said. “I wrote to him and expressed my disappointment. This panders to the worst instincts of our nativist neighbors.”
Levin declined KPBS’ request to comment or explain his vote.
California’s 49th District includes coastal areas in South Orange County and North San Diego County. It is considered a swing district, with a voter registration breakdown of 36% Democrat, 33% Republican and 22% independent.
Before 2018, the seat was held by Republican Darrel Issa, an immigration hardliner. Issa now represents San Diego’s 48th Congressional District, which borders the 49th.
Theiss-Aird believes Levin’s vote was a way to win over conservative voters in the purple district.
“I think he’s worried about his Orange County neighbors reelecting him,” she said. “I can’t see any other reason why he would vote yes on it.”
Have a tip? 📨
The Investigations Team at KPBS holds powerful people and institutions accountable. But we can’t do it alone — we depend on tips from the public to point us in the right direction. There are two ways to contact the I-Team.
For general tips, you can send an email to investigations@kpbs.org.
If you need more security, you can send anonymous tips or share documents via our secure Signal account at 619-594-8177.
To learn more about how we use Signal and other privacy protections, click here.
Barriers to enforcement
The Laken Riley Act comes at a time of increased immigration enforcement as Trump attempts to fulfill his promise of mass deportations.
The bill is named after a nursing student who was killed last year by a Venezuelan man who had no legal status in the U.S. Before the murder, he had been charged with shoplifting in New York and was released.
Proponents of the bill argue this law would have enabled his deportation and prevented Laken Riley’s murder.
Critics of the bill point out that several criminal convictions, including theft, are grounds for deportation. They fear that mandatory detention of people accused but not charged or convicted of crimes violates due process rights.
While the new law expands mandatory detention on paper, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) needs more money from Congress before it can be fully implemented, said Erin Tsurumoto Grassi, associate director with San Diego Alliance, an immigrant rights group.
“What we have to remember is that really, it expands the possibility of mandatory detention,” Tsurumoto Grassi said. “Because being able to detain folks requires money to be allocated through the budget.”
Federal immigration detention facilities are at capacity — so much so that some detainees are being released. Congress has allocated enough funding for roughly 39,000 detention beds.
ICE estimates the agency would need Congress to allocate an additional $26 billion to fund the additional bed spaces and personnel required to enforce the new law. Congressional Republicans are currently working on a budget bill that would increase funding for Trump’s immigration agenda.
History of activism
Pilgrim United has a history of advocating for immigrants rights. Church members have distributed food to migrant workers, hosted refugee families and welcomed asylum seekers dropped off in the streets of Oceanside last year, Pastor Shockley said.
Josh Como, the church’s associate minister, said church members want to push back against the false narrative that most immigrants are criminals and threats to public safety.
“If we keep giving space, it’s going to keep going further and further right,” he said. “How do we actually create an alternative, a more just, humane and compassionate alternative?”
The new law reminds Shockley of Jim Crow laws used to criminalize Black people when he was a kid. Shockley, who is Black, remembers his father telling him to always carry at least $2 with him whenever he was in public.
“Now, in the '60s, $2 was like $20,” he said. “I asked why did I need to carry cash, my father said because if I didn’t have the cash, I could be arrested for loitering.”
Shockley is worried that accusations of theft will funnel immigrants into detention, just like loitering charges were used to put Black people in jail.
“These accusations are unfounded, can be racially motivated and (are) a very dangerous aspect of the Laken Riley law,” he said.
No comment
Levin is among four Democrats in San Diego’s congressional delegation. The other three — Juan Vargas, Scott Peters and Sara Jacobs — all voted against the Laken Riley Act.
KPBS asked each Democrat, along with Issa, for an interview or statement explaining their vote.
Levin declined to participate, telling KPBS through a spokesperson, “We are going to pass on commenting for now.”
In emailed statements, Vargas (D-52) and Peters (D-50) said they’re concerned about the possible due process violations that could come with the new law.
“Immigrants who are convicted of crimes are already subject to deportation,” Vargas wrote. “But this bill would detain and deport immigrants — including Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status holders — who are merely accused of theft and other crimes. All it would take is one false accusation.”
Peters said he supports deporting unauthorized immigrants who are convicted of violent crimes but said the new law goes too far.
“I voted against the Laken Riley Act because it would allow undocumented people to be detained and potentially deported even if they have only been accused of a crime and have not had an opportunity to defend themselves in court,” Peters wrote. “The Laken Riley Act eliminates bedrock due process values for people, which I don’t support.”
Jacobs (D-51) did not respond to KPBS’ multiple requests.
Issa, meanwhile, said in a statement that he was proud to support the bipartisan piece of legislation.
“We are well aware that her death was a senseless tragedy that should never have happened,” he wrote. “The last four years were an unprecedented disaster for the illegal immigration issue, and I would add that this was also the result of radical sanctuary policies that we hope the new Trump Administration will address.”
- Family claims Dr. Bronner’s fosters a risky culture of drug use that led to employee’s accidental overdose death
- Migrants stranded when thousands of appointments to enter the US are canceled as Trump takes office
- Tijuana not prepared for mass deportations as Trump takes office, according to advocates
- Measuring the potential impact of mass deportations in San Diego
