The Brief

During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump, who returns to the White House Monday, promised to carry out the “largest deportation operation” in U.S. history.

California is home to the largest undocumented immigrant population in the U.S. More than 12% of the state’s high school students have at least one parent who is undocumented. For these families, mass deportation represents possible long-term separation, family upheaval and the potential loss of educational opportunities.

Regardless of their immigration status, people who live in the U.S. have constitutional rights. To ensure those rights are respected during interactions with immigration agents, advocates across the country are hosting workshops, in person and online.

In a recent webinar for the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), David Lawlor with the nonprofit’s College Legal Services Team offered some advice to anxious college students who are undocumented or have at least one parent who is: In times of uncertainty, “focus on what you can control.”

“And one of the things you can control,” he said, “is knowing your rights.”

Although LAist can’t give you legal advice — you need an immigration lawyer for that — we talked to Lawlor and other legal experts about how people can learn their rights and be prepared to exercise them.

What happened in the first Trump administration?

In some communities, memories of immigration enforcement under the first Trump administration still ignite fear: In 2017, for instance, a Highland Park father was detained after dropping off his daughter at school. The encounter was filmed by one of his children, whose desperate sobs punctuate the video.

In Mississippi, locals recall the day when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents descended on multiple poultry plants and arrested hundreds of workers in 2019. For the children of those employees, it was the first day of school. That afternoon, many of them returned to empty homes.

Workplace raids, which increased during Trump’s first time in office, are expected to resume. ICE currently has a policy that discourages enforcement in “sensitive locations,” including schools and places of worship. But that policy is discretionary, and some immigrant rights advocates anticipate the new Trump administration will rescind it.

What are my rights if immigration officials come to my home?

Lisa Graybill, vice president of law and policy at the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), said ICE agents sometimes have warrants issued by the Department of Homeland Security. These administrative warrants do not grant agents permission to enter your home.

Carolina Castañeda, a staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), said families should always keep their front doors closed.

If ICE agents knock on your door, you can ask to see a warrant, she said. A valid warrant must be signed by a judge and issued by a court. The agents can either show it to you through the window or slide it under the door.

If your door is open, that doesn’t give agents the right to enter. “It is still a private place,” Castañeda added, “but, unfortunately, it could be that they let themselves in, and it will be more difficult for people to assert their rights. ... We’ve heard of many instances where, if someone just slightly opens the door, they push it open and go in. And this is not right, as they need your permission or a judicial search warrant to be able to enter.”

Sample of a judicial warrant.

(

Central American Resource Center

)

Graybill also warned that ICE agents “have been known to use ruses.” In New Mexico, she said, agents pretended to be delivering pizza to get one family to open the door.

ILRC created a wallet-sized card to help citizens and noncitizens navigate these encounters. On one side, the card lists their constitutional rights, along with guidance. On the other side of the card, the nonprofit has listed phrases that can be used to communicate with ICE agents. These cards are available online in sixteen languages and can be downloaded for free.

A sample card that can be printed at home. The IRLC ships red versions of the cards for free to nonprofits.

(

Courtesy of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center

)

How do I talk to an immigration agent?

Castañeda said families can “often feel overwhelmed” by the presence of ICE agents. In preparation for any potential encounters, she recommends practicing what to say and how to behave.

“It’s so difficult to do it when you're actually faced with the problem,” she said. “So we want to make sure that we're training adults and children in the household that whenever anybody comes to our door, we don't automatically open it, we ask who it is. We ask them to identify themselves. And then we want to make sure that, if we know it's immigration enforcement, that we're asserting our rights. We’re asserting our right to remain silent, we're not giving you permission to enter. If you have a judicial warrant, show it to us.”

Families can also show the ILRC card to the agents through the window, or slide it to them under the door, Castañeda said.

If ICE agents do have a judicial warrant, Graybill added, “ideally, you'd be able to reach an attorney and share a copy of that warrant before moving any further.”

“If you're not able to access an attorney quickly,” she said, read the warrant “very carefully” and “really scrutinize” what it gives agents a right to do.

What are my rights if immigration officials go to my job or school?

Just as you would at home, Castañeda said, “assert your right to remain silent. Do not sign anything. Ask to speak with an attorney.”

Agents who show up at a workplace might tell employees to make two lines, one for citizens and one for noncitizens.

If that occurs, Castañeda said, do not comply. “Usually what happens is that [agents] will start interrogating people about their immigration status,” she said.

“Stand still. Assert your right to remain silent. And, then, ask if you’re free to go,” Castañeda said. “Do not run away. Do not present any fake documents. Do not give out false information — don’t give them anything they can use against you.”

“Insist on the ability to speak with an attorney,” Graybill added.

What if I’m a business owner?

For business owners, Castañeda and Graybill also recommend preparing for a potential ICE visit.

“Make a written response plan ahead of time. And practice it, just like a fire drill," Graybill said.

Castañeda and Graybill noted that, without a warrant, ICE agents can only enter spaces that are open to the public. In a coffee shop, for instance, the kitchen and office space are usually solely open to employees. Business owners should “mark those areas, so that it’s clearly visible that they’re private,’” Castañeda said.

On college campuses, ICE agents likewise cannot enter a space that’s not open to the public without a judicial warrant, including dorm rooms and other areas that require a key card to access, Graybill added.

How else can I protect myself and my family?

In addition to knowing one’s rights and preparing to respond to ICE agents, legal experts recommend that families with members who do not have legal status in the U.S. consult with an attorney. “If folks have a pathway that could lead to residency and eventually citizenship, we want to make sure that we're doing that in advance,” Castañeda said.

Julie Mitchell, who founded CARECEN’s College Legal Services Team, said consulting with an attorney is especially crucial for young people. There are government programs that help, such as the Special Immigrant Juvenile classification, which is for people who’ve been abused, abandoned, or neglected by a parent.

“Some forms of relief are only available until individuals turn 21,” Mitchell said. “Oftentimes, we’re encountering people who’ve aged out of some immigration options.”

Legal experts also recommend that families make a plan, in case they’re apprehended.

• Gather important documents.
  
  • That includes children’s birth certificates.
• If a parent grants another person permission to take care of their child, they need to describe what that will look like in writing, Castañeda said.
  
  • Can they take the child to school? 
  • Can they take them to medical appointments? 
  • Does the child need any medicine?
• Have emergency contact information for other family members.
  
  • For an undocumented family member, write down their date of birth and country of origin. “That's how people can search [for] you on the ICE inmate locator online,” Castañeda said.

• Undocumented family members should also gather any immigration documents.
  
  • “In case a person is detained, their family will have those documents available, to help defend them against the removal,” she added.

ILRC has a guide that describes how to create a comprehensive family preparedness plan step by step. Their free guide is available in English and Spanish.

“No one wants to do this, because it's thinking about being detained,” said Lawlor, of CARECEN. “But it is vital.”

Malibu is pushing back the next phase of its speed camera program along a deadly stretch of PCH to November. The 60-day warning period was originally set to start in November, where drivers going 11 or more miles per hour over the speed limit will get a warning instead of a fine.

The delay, the city says, is needed so adjustments can be made to camera installations.

Yesterday, a Nobu worker was killed about a block from the upscale Japanese restaurant on PCH. CBS LA reports that a juvenile had crashed into the employee's parked vehicle.

When fines start

Malibu officials announced the delay of the program's warning phase last week after a testing period in September recorded around 100,000 speeding violations in less than 10 days.

Enforcement at the 10 cameras along a 21-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway will start sometime after the end of the warning period. According to the city, violations will result in fines, but not driver’s license points or insurance penalties.

Why Malibu added speed cameras

Since 2010, traffic collisions on that part of PCH have killed more than 60 people, the city says. In 2023 alone, there were 220 reported crashes there, with 93 injuries and seven deaths — including four Pepperdine University students who were standing along PCH when a driver hit and killed them. The driver, who is charged with murder, is scheduled to stand trial beginning Dec. 1.

Following that incident, Malibu City Council declared a local emergency over dangerous conditions posed by reckless and speeding drivers.

In 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 1297 into law to allow Malibu to install the speed cameras

Looking to say adios to your lawn by sheet mulching or to add a protective layer to your flower beds? Good news, you don’t need to pay for mulch or woodchips. You can instead get them for free in Southern California. Here are a few different ways, depending on your flexibility - and muscle power.

Free mulch piles

Municipalities across the region offer free mulch.

City of L.A.: You can grab mulch anytime from one of its free mulch piles.

O.C.: You can schedule a pick up from an greenery/landfill

Other cities: see below (or check out your own city government’s page).

• Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 
• City of Rialto Free Compost & Mulch 
• Burrtec's Coachella Valley Composting Facility. It is located at 87011 Landfill Rd in Coachella. 
• City of Rancho Mirage Free Compost and Mulch Program 
• https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/2524/Free-Compost-Mulch-Program 

Free mulch delivery

If you don’t want to go pick up the free mulch yourself, consider ChipDrop. It’s a service that connects arborists with gardeners to deliver free wood chips.

Beware: you may get a lot of mulch. Like, a lot.

(

Jenn Baughman

/

LAist

)

Connect with an arborist:

If you want to try to control the amount of mulch you get - or the date of delivery - you may want to consider talking to an individual arborist. They often end up with excess woodchips they need to get rid of, or take to the dump. If you call they might be happy to offload some for your garden.

Opponents of Proposition 40 have a message for voters: Don’t be fooled. The billionaire tax is a “Trojan horse” for new taxes on all Californians, ads proclaim. But is that true?

Tucked into the initiative is language granting the Legislature authority to amend the tax by a two-thirds vote “if the statute is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.” Opponents argue lawmakers and a future governor could, with the stroke of a pen, expand the wealth tax to people with far less than $1 billion.

In a high-tax state, that argument could hold a lot of sway with voters.

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West put Prop. 40 on the ballot; the initiative would levy a one-time, 5% tax on billionaire’s assets. The union rejects the premise of the ad. It says the tax is limited to billionaires and any legislative amendment would have to hew closely to that purpose. Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, said opponents’ ads are pure scare tactics.

“The billionaire tax is a tax on billionaires. Period. If you’re not a billionaire, you don’t pay the tax,” Regan said in a statement to CalMatters.

Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, the group that paid for the ad, said the message was meant to highlight the policy implications of a wealth tax and the power Prop. 40 gives lawmakers.

“Californians deserve to understand those issues and what they could mean for taxpayers and the state’s economy,” Lapsley said in a statement.

A separate, billionaire-backed group opposed to Prop. 40 has also said the initiative “gives politicians the power to expand the tax to anyone.”

The truth lies somewhere in between.

California courts have given lawmakers real authority to amend laws created by ballot initiatives if the original text of the initiative permits it. However, that power is not unlimited and the measure includes language restricting future legislative changes, said Michael Colantuono, an attorney with expertise in state election law.

Opponents’ ads also don’t mention that Prop. 40 writes the tax into the state Constitution, not just state law, so expanding it would likely require another trip to the ballot.

Legislative authority

Legal experts agree that if Prop. 40 passes, lawmakers would be able to make certain amendments without taking it back to voters.

The state Constitution allows the Legislature to amend a ballot initiative without another vote if the initiative permits it. That’s a relatively common clause in ballot measures, and Prop. 40 includes it.

Megan Jones, a tax attorney at Holland & Knight, said proponents’ claims that the tax could never be changed are disingenuous.

“If it’s going to further the purposes, then they could,” Jones said.

For example, voters passed the Political Reform Act, which governs campaign finance and lobbying rules, in 1974 and lawmakers have amended it almost continually since.

Similarly, lawmakers have amended the Mental Health Services Act, a voter-approved 1% income tax on millionaires, 10 times since its passage in 2004. None of those amendments adjusted the tax rate. Most recently, lawmakers voted to substantially alter how the state spends mental health money and raise additional bond funds. Those changes went back to voters in 2024 as Proposition 1.

But there isn’t always a clear line for when voters need to approve changes, experts say.

“It is common for the Legislature to make amendments,” Colantuono said. “It is (also) common for there to be disputes about those amendments.”

‘Furthers the purposes of’

“Ultimately, it ends up in court,” said Chris Parker, a principal tax attorney at the firm Baker Tilly.

The California Supreme Court ruled in a 1995 case that the Legislature may amend voter-approved laws if the changes can be interpreted as furthering voters’ original goals “by any reasonable construction” — giving lawmakers broad latitude.

In 2021, the state Supreme Court held that the Legislature appropriately amended Proposition 57, a criminal justice reform measure, by barring the transferring of minors under 16 to adult court. Justices cited the 1995 case, noting that “a strong presumption of constitutionality supports the Legislature’s acts.”

Still, the language of the proposition matters.

A few years earlier, in 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a legislative attempt to allow public funding of political campaigns “directly conflicts with a primary purpose” of the Political Reform Act. Lawmakers responded by passing a new bill asking voters to weigh in directly — it appears on this year’s ballot as Proposition 4.

Judges look at two things, Coluantuono said: what reasonable voters thought they were approving, and whether later legislative changes helped that goal, or got in the way.

Certain provisions of Prop. 40 would make it difficult for lawmakers to expand the tax beyond billionaires. The 1995 case established that courts may weigh the language of a ballot measure, arguments printed in the voter guide, and historical context when deciding whether change is consistent with voter intent.

Prop. 40’s purpose and intent section says the measure is meant to support healthcare and education “by raising revenue from a one-time tax on billionaire wealth” — referencing billionaire wealth three times. The voter guide arguments similarly target “approximately 200 California billionaires.”

“They could probably adjust the structure of the tax in marginal ways, but what they couldn’t do is make it a more than a one-time tax, and they probably couldn’t lower the threshold on wealth,” Coluantuono said.

Opponents contend lawmakers could interpret the purpose of the act far more broadly, and a court would agree. They point to the first listed purpose of the initiative that says the tax is meant to “protect access to high quality, equitable health care, and to support funding for kindergarten through grade fourteen public education and food assistance programs.” Opponents also say the proposal gives the Legislature the authority to change all parts of the initiative, including the constitutional provisions.

“Prop 40’s findings and statement of purpose and intent were carefully crafted to ensure that

extending the tax to non-billionaires would be consistent with the measure,” said Kurt Oneto, a lawyer for the No on 40 campaign, in a statement.

Experts said the question would likely come down to how a court read the act’s purposes.

A separate concern: how do you prove wealth? 

Should Prop. 40 pass, it would create an entirely new tax structure in California — one that assigns a value to very wealthy people’s investments, public and private businesses, as well as personal property such as art or car collections.

Valuing something like a tech startup that hasn’t produced a product or gone public could prove especially difficult, Parker said.

“The excise tax that’s being proposed here is on potential,” he said. “The question then is, if we open the door to taxing potential, when does that stop?”

Lawmakers have periodically tried to pass wealth taxes, but the bills quickly stalled. This marks the first time voters will directly decide on one, making Prop. 40 a crucial test of how much appetite Californians have for his kind of tax structure. Jones said the bigger worry isn’t the tax itself, but other taxes that could follow.

“It’s a slippery slope,” she said.

Coluantuono said it would still be politically risky for lawmakers to try to implement a wealth tax on everyday Californians, but history shows temporary taxes have more than once become permanent.

“When we get a revenue stream in the government and we start spending it on services that people value… there’s tremendous political pressure to prevent the sunset,” he said.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, City Councilmember Nithya Raman, appeared at a South L.A. forum Saturday, where they agreed on some aspects of the city’s approach to reducing homelessness, but offered different ideas on addressing housing costs.

The two appeared separately in conversations with Brenda Verano of CALO News at A Place Called Home, a youth services community organization.

Bass went first, saying she grew up just 20 blocks south of the venue.

“South L.A. has been a big part of my life and what I have done,” said Bass, who in 1991 helped start Community Coalition, which fights for racial and economic justice in that part of the city.

Each candidate was asked how they would build trust in City Hall among Black and Latino residents in South L.A.

“Black and brown poor folks the most have been central in my administration and will continue to be so,” Bass said. “But to me, representation is not just about faces in a room. It's about collaborating on everything you're doing.”

Raman said the establishment “has taken the people of Los Angeles for granted.”

“I’m running for mayor because I don’t want to ignore any part of this city,” she said. “I want to make sure we are people who know these communities not just in the mayor's office but across the many commissions, across the many departments that are designed to oversee these neighborhoods.”

How the candidates would work with LAPD 

Both vowed to expand pilot programs where unarmed social workers respond to certain non-emergency 911 calls instead of the police department.

“Law enforcement should not be dealing with homelessness and substance abuse and mental health,” Bass said. “Those are public health issues.”

But Bass said it's doubtful the police department’s budget will be cut before the 2028 Olympics. The mayor in the past has expressed support for growing the number of police officers.

Raman has said the department is about the right size. She expressed concern about the police department’s cooperation with ICE during recent federal immigration raids.

Raman also criticized the department for its crowd control tactics during protests around ICE facilities. Police used tear gas and rubber bullets against some protestors.

“This mayor did not speak out against those actions by LAPD, appointed a chief who has not met this moment, who said he would not enforce laws put in by the state to protect us,” Raman said.

Chief Jim McDonnell has previously said his department would not enforce California's state law banning federal immigration and law enforcement agents from wearing masks on duty. A federal appeals court in February blocked enforcement of the law.

Bass said if the judicial ban is lifted, she would order McDonnell to enforce the state law. The mayor also defended the department’s use of police officers for crowd control during ICE operations.

“If there is a crowd around an arrest, then LAPD is involved because we don’t want to have the federal government doing that,” she said.

Both say city should exit troubled homelessness agency

On the city’s response to homelessness, Bass called the current system “completely disfunctional” and called for a new system under the control of the city.

Currently, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority oversees the city’s delivery of homeless services. Numerous audits have found poor accounting of taxpayer money at the agency — which spent nearly $830 million in public funds last fiscal year.

The county has already pulled its funding from the agency in favor of standing up a new county-run Department of Homeless Services and Housing.

Bass said unhoused people are not getting enough care once they leave the streets.

“It is insufficient. They are not taken care of in terms of their health, education, etc. A new system would enable us to do that,” Bass said.

Raman has said she also supports leaving LAHSA and investing in a new homelessness bureau. She noted that street homelessness fell in her council district while numbers across the city went up, according to this year’s homeless count.

“In the past few years, this mayor has refused to audit our homelessness response,” Raman said. “I am very committed to doing that, and I'll request that audit on day one.”

Sharp divides on housing development, renter protections

On housing, Raman criticized the mayor’s opposition to building more densely in residential neighborhoods near transit centers. She said the result has been more building in the city’s poorer council districts, including the South L.A. district that hosted Saturday’s forum.

“Wealthier neighborhoods, less diverse neighborhoods, whiter neighborhoods have actually pushed back on affordable housing, on greater density,” Raman said.

More of the city, said Raman, should bear the burden of greater density.

“We need to build more housing in Los Angeles, but we need to build it across every single neighborhood,” Raman added.

Bass has said density doesn’t belong in some neighborhoods. She opposed a state law, SB 79, that will force cities to allow apartment buildings up to nine stories tall near rail transit stations.

Bass said her administration has fast-tracked new income-restricted housing. But she argued that certain development restrictions are necessary to prevent gentrification.

“We need housing, but we cannot displace Black and Brown people,” Bass said. “If you have housing that is just built anywhere and everywhere, they're coming for us.”

Raman also criticized Bass’ move to temporarily lift restrictions on short-term rentals in preparation for an influx of visitors during the 2028 Olympics.

“I want to make sure that this mayor’s push for deregulating short-term rental during this time, in ways that are harmful to renters, don’t go through,” Raman said. She said tenants could be displaced as landlords turn long-term rentals into short-term accommodations.

Airbnb and business groups back the proposal, saying it will fill a visitor lodging gap for the Olympics and that it would generate significant municipal revenue. Airbnb has put more than $4 million toward backing Bass and three other city candidates, according to the latest campaign finance reports.