Sanctuary hunger strike at county offices ends today
Several Sebastopol faith congregations and others supported the hunger strike, but 5th District Supervisor Lynda Hopkins remained wary of declaring Sonoma County a "Sanctuary County"
Today marks the end of the “Hunger Strike for a Sanctuary County” at the Sonoma County Administration Building in Santa Rosa. The hunger strike, which began last Tuesday, will end with a ritual at 9 am this morning so that participants and their supporters can make their case to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors during public comment at its August 12 board meeting.
The mostly Latina group of strikers called the strike in an attempt to pressure the supervisors to adopt an ordinance declaring the county to be a “Sanctuary County” and in particular to ensure that the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department doesn’t cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Sebastopol Times dropped by the encampment last week. At the time, the group was asking the media not to speak to the strikers themselves (who were trying to conserve their energy), but to speak instead to appointed representatives, many of whom were from local faith congregations, including several from Sebastopol.
Benjamin Broadbent, pastor of the Sebastopol Community Church, and Irwin Keller of Ner Shalom in Cotati have been helping with the hunger strike, as has Chris Fortin, a Zen Priest who leads Dharma Heart Zen in Sebastopol. Fortin said several Buddhist groups have been involved, including Occidental Laguna Sangha (led by her husband Bruce Fortin) and Graton’s Stone Creek Zen Center.
“So that feels really important,” Fortin said, “just that faith leaders of every tradition share the same heart, morals and ethics about how we treat each other and how we treat other human beings. What we think is other isn’t other; it’s us. How we take care of each other is taking care of the whole world.”
Sebastopol resident Ellen Sheron, who learned about the hunger strike at Dharma Heart Zen, said she’d shown up in solidarity for the woman who’s been her gardener for several years. “She has a two-year-old baby, and she has to live in her house and she can’t take her kid to the park, and it just breaks my heart,” Sheron said. “A man that helps me in my yard and he fixed my property as a carpenter, he’s here with his two kids and his wife, and everything he does, he lives in fear. I feel like it’s what the Rabbi was saying: This is like Germany before World War II, and right now, it’s people with dark skin, but who knows what’s going to happen next?”
Sebastopol resident Roberta Taylor shares this same anxiety. She is a member of Ner Shalom synagogue in Cotati and the chair of its social justice committee, Tzedek. “We became engaged with the Sanctuary Coalition a number of months ago. We are a Sanctuary Synagogue,” she said. “And as a white person, I recognize my power and my privilege, and as a Jew and as a lesbian, I also understand my vulnerabilities. We have to take a stand and stop this insanity. Because if we don't stop it here, who knows where it’s going next? Who’s going to be targeted next?”
Beverly Spears from Santa Rosa’s Unitarian Universalist congregation said she recognizes the roots of the current crisis from her own experience as a black woman.
“I want it stated clearly that beneath all of this persecution of migrant people is racism. People don't want to talk about that, but as a person of color, I know that,” she said. “So that’s my first concern. My other concern is I don't want to lose track ever that this is a human tragedy. These are human beings. These are mothers and children. This is immoral. I'm a faith leader, and that's where I stand: It is immoral and it is wrong.”
Spears isn’t buying the supervisors’ explanations for not becoming a Sanctuary County—namely that it’s not enforceable, given that immigration enforcement is a federal matter, and that it could make Sonoma County a target of the federal government.
“That’s not a good enough answer,” Spears said. “You do it, if for no other reason, because it sends a message to the persecuted migrants in this community that this county stands with them. The argument from the county has been, ‘If we do this, perhaps the federal government will stop funding us.’ And of course, that is the guillotine over every institution’s head in this country right now. And to me, it’s so what? You cross that bridge when you come to it.”
It’s no surprise, in a way, that so many local faith leaders have come together to support the hunger strike— fasting has deep roots in many religious traditions.
Rabbi Keller from Ner Shalom said that “In the Jewish tradition, we have a long history of fasting, both as a kind of penitence and a kind of prayer against danger. In Jewish history, when the rain wouldn’t come or when an epidemic threatened, the response would be prayer and fasting…Fasting is a way of showing contrition, showing humility in the face of what’s happening. Political hunger striking, a more recent development, uses fasting for bringing about change by turning it, instead of into prayer, into political action.”
Keller mentioned Ghandi’s use of fasting as a means of pressuring politicians to change their minds.
“It's a really powerful statement of commitment, of determination and a way to bring to everyone’s mind the direness of what’s going on,” he said. “The direness of the situation requires a dire response.”
A Letter from Linda Hopkins about the Hunger Strike
Lynda Hopkins newsletter to constituents from 8/5/25
As a general rule, we try to keep our newsletters locally focused and community oriented. There is plenty going wrong with the world that could provide fodder for many hundreds of newsletters. In the Fifth District, we’re working on solving local problems and sharing local news.
But there are times when what’s going wrong with the world quite literally hits home. Right now, too many local families are living in fear of ICE and find themselves under an omnipresent threat of deportation. Many of our friends and neighbors are afraid to leave their homes for fear that they may be separated from their families or whisked away by masked officers to an out-of-state detention facility… or worse, flown to a prison in a country they’ve never before set foot in. In response to this, you might have heard that the interfaith community — which includes churches and congregants from west county — is organizing a hunger strike until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance declaring ourselves a sanctuary county.
My heart is with anyone who is willing to forgo food to try to make the world a better place. I’m proud to live in a community that protests injustice and stands up for the most vulnerable among us. I admire the courage, compassion, and empathy of the folks participating in the hunger strike… especially since these virtues feel like they’re in particularly short supply nowadays.
Given this, you may be surprised or even angered by what I have to say next: I do not support passing a sanctuary ordinance. Here’s why.
1) We don’t actually have the power to become a sanctuary county.
Regardless of what we say or do, we cannot legally stop ICE from deporting members of our community. We can’t prevent federal U.S. law enforcement officers from coming into our communities, public parks and public areas of buildings and detaining or arresting residents.
Could we use the word “sanctuary”? Sure. But could we actually turn Sonoma County into a sanctuary, and shut ICE out? Sadly, no. ICE is empowered by law to conduct immigration enforcement. The federal government just invested $29.9 billion into ICE enforcement and deportation efforts, tripling the agency’s budget.
Knowing that we can’t stop mass immigration sweeps — and that more will come with the increased funding — is a horrible feeling. It’s something I think about every day, and it’s difficult to imagine the weight this reality places on our immigrant community members.
2) Because of #1, adopting a sanctuary ordinance could cause harm.
It risks creating a false sense of security and contributes to misinformation. Worse, it may put a target on the backs of local immigrants and refugees—particularly under a federal administration that has demonstrated a willingness to pursue retribution.
Earlier this year, the administration released a list of so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which included the entire State of California and Sonoma County. That list was later withdrawn after pushback from several conservative counties that were also named.
However, just today, the Justice Department reissued and expanded the list—this time under Executive Order 14287, formalizing the designation process as part of a broader federal enforcement strategy. Sonoma County is not currently listed, but California remains, and the administration has explicitly stated its intent to pursue litigation and ICE enforcement against named jurisdictions.
This moment calls for clarity, compassion, and a steady focus on the well-being of our entire community.
3) The current sanctuary ordinance request seems to be focused on the interactions of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office with ICE.
But there’s a problem with the Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopting a sanctuary ordinance: the BOS doesn’t have authority over the law enforcement policies of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (SCSO). Which means that even if we passed an ordinance telling the Sheriff what to do, he wouldn’t have to do it. Why? Because SCSO authority is derived from the Constitution of the State of California. The Sheriff does not report to the BOS. In my mind, it doesn’t make sense to adopt a policy that we don’t actually have the authority to implement. Again, this could create a false sense of security and contribute to misinformation.
4) I support the current SCSO policy, which is actually more protective of immigrants than the policy of the State of California.
a) What is the SCSO’s policy under (and beyond) the State law of S.B. 54?
First of all, the Sheriff’s office does not coordinate with ICE or participate in immigration enforcement, sweeps or raids. SCSO does not honor ICE holds or detainers, either. In fact, SCSO does not detain anyone for ICE unless legally required to — which means there is a signed warrant from a judge ordering them to.
b) So then what does the Sheriff’s office do, and how does it interact with ICE?
Currently, the Sheriff’s office gives less information to ICE than it would give to any member of the public. If a member of the public calls SCSO to inquire about the release date of an incarcerated person, SCSO will provide the date and time of release. If ICE inquires about the release date of an incarcerated person, SCSO only provides that information if the incarcerated person has been convicted of serious and violent felonies. (There is a matrix determining precisely what and how many crimes qualify. SCSO has modified this matrix over the years in ways that reduce the number of notifications.)
c) Of the 484 requests from ICE to SCSO last year, only 64 received a response with information about release date and time. (This represents a decrease in notifications of 11% from 2023.)
These 64 responses resulted in 10 ICE arrests on the grounds of the Main Adult Detention Facility. The 64 notifications included the following categories and numbers: 34 violent crimes (weapons, robbery, drug sales, kidnapping, arson), 3 sex offenses, 12 felony DUIs, 15 miscellaneous (identity theft, burglary, federal warrant, evading).
In prior years I have reviewed details of the notification list cases. Every case I reviewed included violent and serious felonies. These were not one-offs, not minor crimes, not a couple of youthful bad decisions — these were serious repeat offenders. Are we fighting to protect the vast majority of our immigrant community, or are we fighting to protect the ten folks arrested by ICE who repeatedly committed crimes? The Sheriff is trying his best to strike a balance in protecting both our immigrant community and the safety of the public at large.
5) Finally, the Board of Supervisors did adopt a resolution earlier this year in support of our immigrant community.
We directed all the County departments we oversee to take substantive action in support of immigrants. As a result, we have changed some of our policies and practices to help ensure continued immigrant access to our services. That resolution is available HERE.
We could declare ourselves a fire-free county. We could declare ourselves a flood-free county. But that won’t stop the fires or floods from coming. What makes more sense to me is to prepare ourselves for fires and floods — or in this case, prepare ourselves for ICE raids by volunteering for or donating to local non-profits. I challenge you to take a know-your-rights training, to learn how to support immigrants and refugees as a legal observer, or to contribute to an immigrant-supporting non-profit.
I deeply respect our community’s conviction and willingness to take a stand. I am committed to working for, fighting for, and standing alongside our immigrant community. But I can’t vote for something I don’t believe in. I can’t vote for an ordinance that amounts to an empty promise. I can’t do something that looks good on paper but doesn’t result in action and, worse, may cause harm. I’m not afraid to speak truth to power or to stand up for my beliefs… but to me, this one feels like pretending I have power. It feels like grandstanding to make a point in a way that could hurt folks who are living with an impossible daily reality. I understand that many community members feel and see things differently than I do. It’s possible for good people to hold the same values and goals and yet still disagree on strategy. I look forward to continuing the conversation with all of you… My door and mind are always open!
Take care,
Lynda
PS: I wanted to mention that our SCSO deputies are all members of our community and they don’t wear masks. It’s also worth noting the IJS (Integrated Justice System, the data system that SCSO and probation use) does not include documentation status. In other words, deputies and probation officers do not know the documentation status of the individuals they interact with. Should the federal government attempt to obtain information about documentation status of folks involved in our criminal justice system, they wouldn’t be able to, because the information isn’t there to begin with.
Resolution to Uphold the civil rights, dignity, health and safety of our immigrant population and all Sonoma County residents
Support for immigrant communities centralized webpage
Letter from Sheriff Engram March 2025
I very much appreciate this thorough reporting on this topic and Supervisor Hopkins, thoughtful response….
Sebastopol Times….thank you again
Lynda Hopkins is perfection as a leader.