Sanctuary City Fight Hasn't Really Begun

An overflow room had to be set up in the North Light Court at City Hall on Monday because Room 250 was bursting with people interested in the Public Safety Committee hearing on Supervisor David Campos’ proposal to change San Francisco’s sanctuary policy. Under Campos’ amendment, law enforcement officers would no longer have to report potentially undocumented youth to federal immigration officials at the time of arrest — they would only have to notify the feds after a juvenile is actually convicted of a felony or after a grand jury indicts the juvenile as an adult.

For some three hours on Monday, members of the public spoke in favor of the amendment. Only two people made statements against the proposal, and both were met with hissing from the audience. Supporters of the new policy spoke about the need to make sure young people receive full “due process” before being subjected to deportation to a country where they may not have any family or other support.

I have written here before about my doubts that the city attorney will issue rules that prohibit officials from reporting undocumented juveniles who are arrested for felonies. I had a chance to speak with Supervisor Campos after the hearing and asked him about the enforceability of his proposal.

He correctly pointed out that the amendment doesn’t stop city employees from reporting juveniles to the federal authorities at any stage of the criminal process; instead, it simply moves the point at which city employees must inform the feds from the time of felony arrest (where it is now) to the point of indictment as an adult or conviction. According to Campos, “this change is a policy decision that the board is entitled to make.” (Proposed law here in pdf  Download Campos Sanctuary City.)

So, why do we currently have a policy requiring law enforcement to report juveniles to immigration officials at the time of arrest and not after a conviction? For starters, California courts have held that the right to due process is not violated when information about undocumented arrestees is conveyed to the feds. (Fonseca v. Fong, 167 Cal.App. 4th 922, 938, n.15 (2008).) In other words: because we can. Whether we must is trickier.

Federal law says that The City cannot punish government employees who want to give information to immigration authorities. (8 U.S.C. sec. 1373.) Also, state law actually requires law enforcement officials to notify federal immigration at the point of arrest (not conviction) whenever a person is picked up for certain drug crimes. (Health & Safety Code sec. 11369.) These factors, plus some old-fashioned executive decision-making by the mayor, led to the current sanctuary policy.

Deciding whether and how this policy can legally be moved around to protect juveniles will fall to City Attorney (and mayoral hopeful) Dennis Herrera, who told me, “We’ll consider what the board ultimately passes and we’ll advise our clients accordingly with respect to how that interacts with state and federal law.”

And if Herrera’s office does not advise clients to be more lenient on juveniles who are arrested for felonies?

“The board will have to find a way to deal with that,” Campos said.

Comments

[gdewar]

when the sanctuary city law was passed by voters in 1989, it was sold to them as a way to ensure that we didn't create a class of people in town who would be the victims of crime, simply because they'd be too scared to come forward and talk to the police, or go to the hospital. the idea was that you'd want people to come forward, regardless of status, and provide information to the police.

this policy has now been twisted to benefit people who are committing crimes. this is wrong, and is an example of good intentions paving the road to Hell with a full blown paving crew. Campos should be ashamed.

[Colin V. Gallagher]

After my letter to the Examiner criticizing the sanctuary legislation sponsored by Supervisor Campos had been published last week, I had received a phone message from an anonymous caller referring to me as a "yuppie fag" and threatening me with further harassment. Don't be fooled by the claim of sanctuary proponents that most San Francisco voters support this measure. Most San Franciscans recognize that the legislation is either unconstitutional or unenforceable but prefer not to oppose it publicly and subject themselves to the kind of homophobic harassment by sanctuary proponents that I have received.