Mayor to ignore San Francisco's wishesText and images by Sarah Phelan
Sups. David Campos, Ross Mirkarimi and Bevan Dufty shortly after they joined Board President David Chiu and Sups. John Avalos, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell and Chris Daly in amending the city's sanctuary policy. Dufty has said that Mayor Newsom threatened not to endorse Dufty's bid for mayor, if he supported the amendment.
Yesterday’s celebration of the Board’s veto-proof amendment of the sanctuary ordinance felt similar to the joy that surrounded the city's decision to start marrying same-sex couples. Only this time, instead of leading the civil rights charge, Mayor Gavin Newsom appears to be opposing it, citing fears that the city could be sued.
Following the supervisors’ vote, supporters of the Campos amendment poured out of the Board Chambers, chanting “Yes we can,” in Spanish and English, and into the second-floor rotunda, joined by Sup. David Campos.
Campos and immigration attorney Francisco Ugarte celebrate the Board's historic Oct. 20 vote.
But even as Campos talked to the crowd about the importance of fighting for civil rights and against the slippery slope of a two-tiered system of justice, mayoral spokesperson Nathan Ballard appeared to be belittling the work of Campos and numerous civil and immigration rights experts, while vowing to ignore the Board's amendment.
“The Campos bill isn’t worth the paper it’s written on—it’s unenforceable and he knows that,” Ballard told the Chron.
‘We are not going to put our law enforcement officers in legal jeopardy just because the Board of Supervisors wants to make a statement."
Ana Perez the director of CARECEN SF, shares her thoughts on the Board's vote with the media.
But can Newsom selectively ignore laws that have been passed by a veto-proof majority of the Board, and have been vetted as being legally tenable by the City Attorney?
“I don’t know," Campos told the Guardian. " I’m still trying to figure out whether the mayor can do that. We’re going into uncharted legal territory.”
A crowd of supporters, including civil rights experts, immigration attorneys and community leaders, gathered in the rotunda to celebrate, even as the Mayor's Office announced it intends to ignore the Board's sanctuary amendment.
Campos did say that he is still hopeful that Newsom will be supportive as the city’s C.E.O. But if he isn't, the Board will have to explore his options, Campos observed.
“We can all have differences of opinion,” Campos said, "but this goes beyond the underlying issue of sanctuary. It touches upon the democratic process. We were elected to represent the people of San Francisco, and in ignoring the Board’s authority, the mayor, in a sense, is ignoring the people and the authority of San Francisco.”
Campos also noted that Ballard's statement that the Mayor's Office intends to ignore the newly approved change to the sanctuary policy is unprecedented.
“We’ve never had a mayor say that he or she won’t enact laws implemented by the Board,” Campos said. “We’ve all has policy differences on a number of issues, but unless a decision is illegal we implement it. And we’ve had the City Attorney say, this legislation is approved as to form in the sense that it’s legally defensible.”
Campos explained that his amendment won’t prevent anyone from handing felons over to immigration authorities, but it will ensure that the city only hands over folks who actually have committed a felon
“The whole point of having a sanctuary ordinance is that we choose not to be in the business of federal immigration enforcement,” Campos said. “We are not an arm of ICE, and, to my knowledge, the mayor’s office has not been deputized to do their bidding.”
Campos noted that the whole state, and especially the immigrant right’s community in Southern California, is watching what’s happening in San Francisco—and that they are very concerned by Newsom’s stance.
“San Francisco went from being a leader to a place that’s perceived as dangerous to youth,” Campos said. “I think Newsom’s policy goes against the sentiment of many people throughout the state and the country. We need to move in a more positive direction and away from the politics of fear.”
Campos believes that a thoughtful, measured approach that recognizes that there is no easy solution is needed—and he believes that this is exactly what his amendment does.
"Our solution is a very measured and very balanced, and it’s not radical at all,” Campos said. “It’s a very middle of the road approach, which is what this country needs, and it's what the Obama administration wants, once the health care debate is done.”
Campos also noted that what the supervisors has just approved is not some advisory measure.
“The legislation does not say, hey, if you happen to be in the mood,” Campos said. “ It says, this is the policy of the city and we expect you to enforce it.”
Campos feels that SFPD Chief George Gascón’s recent comment that he’d like to find a compromise in this debate indicates that the chief is trying to figure a way out of this predicament.
“And I appreciate the sentiment, but it does not go far enough," Campos said. “I also feel that if the Chief had been in his current role a year ago, when Newsom’s policy was crafted, the mayor would have a different policy now. I think the difference lies in what the Chief brings to the table, not only as an immigrant himself, but based on his experiences in L.A. and Arizona.”
With the City Attorney’s Office not commenting on the legality of Newsom's current stance, insiders say that many at City Hall are perplexed why Newsom doesn't just say, 'O.K, I’ll sign this, if this is what you want,' at which point the issue would become the problem of the City Attorney’s office, involving questions having to do with federal preemption, state law reporting requirements for drug arrests and Tenth Amendment rights.
For as the City Attorney’s leaked memo about the Campos amendment notes, “The federal and state law governing sanctuary ordinances, including the proposed amendment, is not settled. The enactment of the proposed amendment is 1) likely to result in a federal legal challenge to the proposed amendment, and possibly the entire City of Refuge ordinance and 2) could adversely affect a pending civil suit in state court challenging the Police Department’s immigration reporting policies, a federal criminal investigation into the Juvenile Probation Department’s reporting policies, and a pending wrongful death lawsuit against the City.”
And as knowledgeable experts note, by pushing the envelope, yes, the Board could trigger a lawsuit brought by the right wing, but that suit could also help shine light on what’s wrong with our current immigration laws and show ihow the right wing is trying to institutionalize a two-tiered system of justice within the United States.
And hopefully, any such lawsuit could lead to a better policy, nationwide.
And should the city lose this round of this particular fight? Then folks will know that San Francisco fought for what's right, and along the way, immigrant juveniles would also know that San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance, as implemented by Newsom, only offers them and their community a false sense of security.
As Campos told the crowd last night, "The danger of not letting the vast majority have their day in court is that you risk reporting kids who are not guilty, and why should they pay the price?"
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (7)
I'm skeptical that this measure enjoys widespread support among the people of San Francisco. Especially in a city with an unemployment rate of over 10%.
Posted by Petra Meyer | October 22, 2009 09:34 AM
I wonder what the result would be if this were put to a vote of the people in San Francisco? I'm certain the results would mirror that of the Guardian-backed measure to allow illegal immigrants to vote in school board elections - which went down to defeat.
Hopefully someone will put it on the ballot so we can see exactly how much support it has. Until then the mayor can decide if he wants to enforce it or not. That's his prerogative as mayor, much to the Guardian's chagrin.
Posted by Lucretia Snapples | October 22, 2009 11:01 AM
What does unemployment have to do with a policy that says you can not immediately deport youth who have yet to be convicted of any crimes?
If people understood this policy, I don't see why San Franciscans would not decide to uphold it: You can't simply deport YOUTH and take them away from their families on the MERE SUSPICION of a crime. This is a simple and just law and the only thing that complicates it are racist misconceptions like the classical "they're stealing our jobs" argument, which surfaces vaguely here, but is not at all informed by the topic at hand.
Posted by Husam Zakharia | October 22, 2009 11:24 AM
Jason Grant Garza here ... lovely, an unenforceable admendment ... per the SF Chronicle article "Gabriel Calvillo, president of the San Francisco Deputy Probation Officers' Association, told The Chronicle the city's 60 juvenile probation officers will continue reporting arrested youth to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement if they suspect they're in the country illegally.
"I think that keeps all of our officers safe and free from violation of federal law," Calvillo said."
So is Campos planning on running for Mayor with this new unenforcable admendment to Sanctuary? Mind you sanctuary ... a safe place, ha, ha, ha.
Let me tell you a story about how the city broke the law against a citizen, had his case thrown out of federal court by testilying, and signed a confession admitting fault and guilt. Type my name into a google search engine and read or www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3956&catid=4
Read all the years it took to get this confession, also please NOTE that I have been to the Supervisors for and investigation, filed a "Whistleblower Complaint", and still sit here left for DEAD. I cannot get an investigation with a signed confession yet have time to create unenforcable laws ... why can't they insure that the old ones work? Because they DO NOT and when officials are held to account ... they DO NOT. Look NO FURTHER than the governor who is violating court orders yet will he be arrested? Ah, the illusion of false hope perpetuated by false leaders who won't account.
Where do I go for my Sanctuary (place to be SAFE) if I CAN NOT the law followed or the lawbreakers to have contrition since they are unaccountable? Certainly not at the city leadership level ... I can provide a list I have been to ... who have all stuck their head in the sand. Read the article and realize that this admendment is just spin and hype to be used later on as "See how much I (Campos) really care!"
So let me see ... the lawbreakers (city) don't have to do an investigation into my case with a signed confession; yet they write an unenforceable law ... what's up with that?
Good thing I AM NOT GOING AWAY.
Posted by Jason Grant Garza | October 22, 2009 04:06 PM
"But can Newsom selectively ignore laws that have been passed by a veto-proof majority of the Board, and have been vetted as being legally tenable by the City Attorney?" - Yes he can & should. Newsom swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law, including 8 USC 1373, which prohibits any state or local government entity from firing or discipling any official for reporting an illegal alien to the ICE, supersedes state and local enactments. If Newsom believes that the Campos proposal is unconstitutional & preempted by federal law, which the City Attorney's 8/18/09 Memorandum suggests is so, then he should either refuse to implement the ordinance as amended or resign. As noted in the City Attorney's Memorandum, the U.S. Attorney's office is continuing a criminal investigation as to whether the city had illegally transported or harbored juvenile illegal aliens. Juvenile Probation Officers may be subject to arrest or indictment by federal officials if they alter their current practice of reporting juvenile aliens to ICE upon booking if they follow the Board of Supervisors' directive. Outside counsel has been retained for these city employees at the city's expense. Putting local public safety officers at an increased risk of criminal prosecution is not justified solely for the pleasure of "pushing the envelope".
Posted by Colin Galalgher | October 22, 2009 05:33 PM
The Board needs to attach conditions to funding the SFPD so that no city moneys can be used to pay cops to do this unfunded mandate.
It might not make sense to fire rank and file cops, but the message will get through if the Mayor and Chief are held accountable should a rank and file cop violate City law by expending resources as prohibited by local law and held accountable. Don't think there are any federal laws against that.
The rank and file cops, on the other hand, might find their career trajectory diminished if they put their superiors in harm's way.
-marc
Posted by marcos | October 22, 2009 07:56 PM
"But can Newsom selectively ignore laws that have been passed by a veto-proof majority of the Board, and have been vetted as being legally tenable by the City Attorney?" You all seem to think it's acceptable to ignore federal law and the constitution of the United States so ignoring this "symbolic" ploy at getting national attention should be a piece of cake. “I don’t know," Campos told the Guardian. " I’m still trying to figure out whether the mayor can do that. We’re going into uncharted legal territory.” I'm not so sure he cares if it's legal or not. He got his name on FOX news and insured that his attorney friends will continue to pull money from the taxpayers trying to figure out the legality of it all. "As Campos told the crowd last night, "The danger of not letting the vast majority have their day in court is that you risk reporting kids who are not guilty, and why should they pay the price?" Um, because there in this country illegally. What an absolute waste of time and money that was.
Posted by Matt | October 23, 2009 11:58 PM