Campos’ civil rights legislation heads to BoardText and photos by Sarah Phelan
Sup. David Campos’ proposal to amend the city’s sanctuary ordinance so that it extends due process to youth inched one step closer to becoming law, today.
During the Oct. 5 meeting of the Board’s Public Safety Committee, Board President David Chiu and Sup. Ross Mirkarimi recommended that the Campos proposal be sent to the full Board for consideration later this month.
Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, who said she wanted the Campos proposal to be first heard in a closed session of the Board, voted against Chiu and Mirkarimi's recommendation.
But as Campos noted, the legal implications of his proposal have already been publicly aired, thanks to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to leak a confidential City Attorney memo to the Chronicle—a memo now posted at the Mayor’s website.
“I know a lot has been said about this piece of civil rights legislation,” Campos said at today's hearing “And this is a piece of civil rights legislation that deals with the specifics of the city’s sanctuary ordinance and more precisely a very narrow and measured amendment to that legislation.”
“And I understand the very important role that the supervisors play in a number of issues involving civil rights,” added Campos, noting that he was sitting in the seat once occupied by Sup. Harvey Milk, the now legendary gay rights activist.
Campos also thanked the dozens of civil and human rights organizations that support his legislation, including several LGBTQ groups, and his seven co-sponsors on the Board—Board President David Chiu and Sups. John Avalos, Bevan Dufty, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell, Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly.
Together, these colleagues have given Campos a veto-proof majority in face of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s ongoing opposition towards Campos’ proposed changes.
That opposition crystallized in August, when Newsom leaked a confidential memo to the Chronicle, in an apparent effort to deal the Campos legislation a preemptive strike.
But as Campos, an attorney by training, and many legal experts, point out, the City Attorney’s office frequently issues cautionary memos on cutting edge legislation.
Similar memos were likely prepared when Newsom decided to marry same-sex couples at City Hall, and when former Sup. and now state Assemblymember Tom Ammiano authored the city’s health care legislation.
And as Campos pointed out, contrary to what folks may have read in some media outlets, his amendment is not legislation that was put together on the fly, but was carefully crafted in close consultation with many people, including the City Attorney’s Office.
“The City Attorney has approved this legislation to be legally tenable and defensible,” Campos said.
Campos noted that a lot has been said about the potential for litigation if his amendment passes—by people who have no problem going forward with trail blazing legislation.
Campos then paused to quote Newsom's own words, spoken last month, when the mayor decided to push ahead with his plan to place a fee on stores that sell soda.
"We know we'll be sued," [Newsom] said. "But I really believe this is important to do."
But no one from the Mayor’s Office showed up at today’s hearings to explain why Newsom doesn’t believe it’s important to give immigrant youth the right to prove their innocence before being handed over to the feds.
“Some of the issues that the Mayor’s Office has raised are pre-textual and are being used as a justification for avoiding a policy discussion,” Campos said after today’s hearing, which lasted four hours and included testimony from people directly impacted by the current policy as well as opinions from legal experts who understand immigration law and are confident that the Campos amendment will survive a legal challenge.
Also speaking were members of the Asian community, who recalled the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was championed by then Mayor James Phelan (no relation to the author of this blog post), as well as members of the LGBTQ community, who noted that many immigrants come to this country to escape anti-gay sentiments in their countries of origin. Others noted that many children don't choose to enter this country, but are brought by parents escaping economic oppression, and that not all undocumented youth are from Latin America.
Asked if anyone from Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office was invited to today’s Campos said, “They have known about this hearing and had an opportunity to come and talk about it. Their silence on this issue is deafening. It points to the fact that they don’t have much to say. I invite the Mayor’s Office and the Mayor to discuss this issue at any time, in any forum.”
At least 160 youth have been reported to ICE, since Newsom ordered his new sanctuary policy last summer.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
San Francisco is about to extend the Green Card draft option to all those of military service age, from October 8th to 13th, in our annual all forces military recruitment drive, Fleet Week and the Blue Angels Air Show. This drive occurs every year, at San Francisco's invitation. That's one way we've been a sanctuary city since 1981, when Dianne Feinstein requested our first Fleet Week/Blue Angels recruitment drive.
Posted by Ann Garrison | October 6, 2009 12:50 AM
Really glad to see David Campos not compromising on fundamental constitutional issues. I'm sure the pressure was intense. But either the constitution applies to all persons equally or we start carving it up and only the favored enjoy protections.
It does not hurt matters that Newsom is tacking to the right on a civil rights issue that a plurality of Latino Democratic primary voters are paying attention to...shades of how well Prop 187 worked for the neanderthal Republicans.
-marc
Posted by marcos | October 6, 2009 08:35 AM
Jason Grant Garza here ... geez, federal law ... what is that? Is that like Marijauna (illegal) under federal law; however, not state? Or would it be like federal law ... JUSTICE FOR ALL, EQUAL PROTECTION. ETC ... ask GAY people and marriage? How's about federal law that requires compliance with Treaties ... like Geneva ... oh, that's right we DON'T torture. Or how about federal law like EMTALA (Emergency Medical Transfer and Labor Act) that the city broke against me and now the Office of Inspector General (Donald White 202-619-0088) has a settlement admitting fault and guilt to which I am NOT a party just the party of. The hospital settled with government and paid a fine; however, they did NOT settle with me ... when I went to the Supervisors (even my own ... I could NOT get a meeting NOR investigation ... ask Rick Galbreath 554-6783 ... and this is with a signed confession. I received "risk management" from the Controller's Office when I filed a whistleblower complaint ...
So shall we see just how far this goes ... the Ethic Commission, Sunshine, etc and the farce that will expose.
Or maybe I should just quote Avalos who stated in SF Examiner Tuesday Oct 6, 2009 p.6 in the article written by Joshua Sabatini entitled "Daly blasts Newsom's sanctuary memo leak" ... where Avalos states "I'm not entirely confident that the Ethics Committee is going to say that there was official misconduct,"Avalos said. "But I am willing to say that, on my own, that I believe that it constitues official misconduct to release such a memo because it jeopardizes the standing of the City in its arguments." Would that be like me going to his office and requesting an investigation into a signed confession admitting breaking the law (City's settlement with OIG ... read the article www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3956&catid=4 ... judge for yourself wheather the lawbreaking activity in federal court (Testilying) should be looked into. Remember they signed a confession admitting breaking the law yet lied in federal court to have my case dismissed. I was denied "DUE PROCESS" against their EXPERT WITNESS which lied when juxaposed to the confession. Why is NO ONE LOOKING INTO THIS?
Where do I go to report Official Misconduct ... oh, that's right I went to the Sunshine Commission (Nurse Ratched letter from Sheriff's Office read about it in SF Bay Guardian "Ratched Response" ... when I was falsely arrested and denied EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES at SFGH.) What did I get from the Ethic's Commission, what did I get from DPH, what did I get from the Human Rights Commission, or Mayor's Office of Disability, the list goes on; however, the LAWS and JUSTICE never applied.
The most interesting part is the lack of investigation after a signed confession yet these same supervisors expect us to believe they care ... ha, ha, ha.
Sanctuary for who? I'm NOT even PROTECTED by my supervisors or Mayor with a signed confession NOR am I respected since I have been told that they paid a fine to OIG as if that makes up contrition to their VICTIM (what about my lawsuit that was thrown out by testilying?). Would an investigation prove this? You bet your sweet bippie ... just to show you how things are ...
And this is what they do to a CITIZEN with a SIGNED CONFESSION ... maybe, I should be an illegal alien then I would at least receive SANCTUARY, ha, ha, ha.
Posted by Jason Grant Garza | October 6, 2009 11:22 AM
This is great news! If San Francisco's serious about the sanctuary city policy, if it's truly "designed to protect our residents, regardless of immigration status," as Newsom says, then that status must include due process under the law. "Criminal behavior" should be decided in the courts, and not by the color of someone's skin. Plus, keeping families together and communities intact is vital to maintaining public safety in SF. Good job!
Posted by concerned resident | October 6, 2009 02:49 PM