Newsom lacks authority to decide what’s legal, Campos saysText and photos by Sarah Phelan
Campos moments after Board approves his legislation to give juvenile immigrants their day in court.
Sup. David Campos said today that Mayor Gavin Newsom lacks the authority to ignore the city’s newly amended sanctuary ordinance. And he rebuked the mayor for making it sound, in comments Newsom made to Fox News, as if being a suspect is the same thing as being a convicted criminal.
“I think it’s important for us to look at the facts before we generalize and make comments,” Campos said.
Campos’ comments came as a veto-proof majority of the Board approved the second reading of Campos proposal to give immigrant juveniles their day in court before handing them over to the feds.
Flanked by Ariana Gil-Nafarrate of Mujeres Unidas y Activas and Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus, Estella, an immigrant mother, recalls how ICE put a hold on her 15-year-old daughter after a fight in school.
Campos proposal changes a policy that Newsom ordered in June 2008, after city probation officials were apprehended in Texas, escorting Hondurans teens to their country of origin.
Campos agrees that the city should halt that practice, and that city officials should refer juvenile felons to ICE. But he disagrees with Newsom’s current practice, which has led to 150 kids being referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.) to ICE, without first having had the chance to establish their innocence.
Campos says he expects the city to change this policy, as stipulated under his amendment. He says Newsom has 10 days to veto his legislation, and the Board has 30 days to override it, after which the City must change its policy so juveniles are not reported to ICE until they are found guilty of a felony by a juvenile justice.
To illustrate his point about the limits of mayoral power, Campos referred to the California Supreme Court ruling that was triggered by Newsom’s 2004 announcement that he intended to start marrying same-sex couples.
“Even though we have a strong mayor system, the power of the mayor is not absolute,” Campos said. “That’s why we have the Board to enact laws that are reflective of the will of the people.”
If mayors were able to selectively ignore laws, Campos pointed out, "That would be depriving people affected by that law their due process.”
“A public official faithfully upholds the constitution by complying with the mandates of the legislature, leaving the courts the decision of whether the mandates are valid,” Campos said, referring to the state Supreme Court ruling.
“It’s a fallacy that elected officials can ignore a law enacted by the legislature," Campos continued. "When this law is passed, when the mayor decides to veto it, when the Board decides to override it, we ask the Mayor to do his constitutional duty: let this law be implemented as the system requires it to be. We expect nothing less.”
“It’s been a long time coming,” Campos said, referring to the community's battle to amend a unilateral policy decision that Newsom made 16 months ago. “This is a proud day for San Francisco, this is a victory for the community. This shows that San Francisco is committed to the notion that we are all human beings, that we are all treated equally."
Asked about Newsom's claims that the Campos amendment opens up the entire sanctuary ordinance to challenge, Campos said, “I think the biggest danger to the sanctuary policy was the mayor’s decision to release a confidential memo."
Asked about Newsom's claims that the Campos amendment opens up city workers to civil and criminal lawsuits, Campos said "I don’t think he can point to any instance where a city employee has been found liable for following sanctuary ordinance."
Noting that the sanctuary ordinance just celebrated its 20th anniversary, Campos added, "We expect the mayor and every employee of the city to follow laws that have been duly enacted and If the Mayor does not enact it, then Board will look at its options, including a legal challenge."
Campos words were followed by the tearful recollections of an immigrant single mother called Estella, who talked about how her 15-year old daughter had an ICE hold placed on her after she got into fight at school.
Following Estella's public testimony, Abigail Trillin, a staff attorney with LEgal Services for Children, said she like someone from the Mayor’s Office to publicy debate the sanctuary issue with Campos.
"If the mayor's position is that a minor, who has not been found guilty, needs to be reported to immigration, let’s talk about that," Trillin said. " But let’s not put fake federal laws in the way. There is no federal law that says juveniles that are arrested on a felony must be reported. That's a smoke and mirror thing."
Pointing to recent statements from law enforcement chiefs in Los Angeles and Sacramento who are supportive of sanctuary laws, Trilliin added, "Anyone who knows about juvenile justice and public safety knows that reporting people who haven’t been found guilty destroys community trust."
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (6)
So to subvert the US constitution Campos refers to the state constitution?
I'm a bit confused by all that quoting of Campos as to what he is citing, the federal constitution has rules on citizenship, these are federal rules the "progressives" demand we ignore.
The federal government has rules enacted by the federal legislative branch for the whole nation concerning immigration, that the SF progressives demand we ignore.
So Campos wants to ignore the US constitution by citing the state constitution?
When Campos gets termed out he should get a job with a tobacco firm.
It's an odd world you all have created for yourselves.
Posted by glen matlock | October 28, 2009 01:54 AM
Perhaps because Campos came here illegally from Guatemala he's unfamiliar with the US Constitution. The federal government controls the borders and makes the rules on citizenship, not the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
And is Sarah Phelan incapable of writing a single article without referencing someone's "tears?"
Posted by Lucretia the Troll | October 28, 2009 06:20 AM
The Feds have issued an unfunded mandate requiring localities to enforce federal law.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors holds the power of the purse and decides on what programs San Francisco tax dollars shall and shall not be spent, including the SFPD.
If the SFPD does not follow the Administrative Code because it believes that it embodies both the executive and judiciary branch, following in the ideological footsteps of George "Unitary Executive" W. Bush, then the Board of Supervisors needs to amend the budget to ensure that San Francisco's tax dollars are not spent turning immigrant youth over to the feds.
George Gascon needs to be taught who is the boss in San Francisco, and that this is most certainly not Los Angeles. Budgetary restrictions would make rank and file officers think twice if their zeal to disobey local law were to put the Chief or other brass in danger of official misconduct for spending resources in violation of the condition of appropriation by the legislature.
There are all sorts of draconian rules that govern the border, rules that were in place long before 9/11, where constitutional protections do not even apply to citizens until the border agent decides to admit you. This is often used as a political cudgel to promote other agendas, and combined with skyrocketing costs for a passport, makes a mockery of the constitutional guarantee to free travel. When I returned from a six week trek to Central America in 1987, I was detained by the FBI for hours at the border in Juarez/El Paso for bringing back books, literature and flags from Nicaragua. I had no constitutional rights until the special agent gave me leave after hours of interrogation.
Just as Reagan used the borders in service of his foreign policy, so does Gavin Newsom attempt to leverage his flagging gubernatorial bid on the backs of immigrant youth.
It is one thing to control the border, and quite another to trash the constitution by carving out unsubstantiated exceptions to its application which violate other provisions of the document, such as the 14th Amendment guarantees of due process that was inked with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans. And to take out one's nativist impulses on youth is the pathetic political equivalent of kicking a cat.
-marc
Posted by marcos | October 28, 2009 07:44 AM
Marc, you as a progressive are complaining about unfunded mandates?
A coherent awareness of the world around you isn't the progressives strong point.
Posted by glen matlock | October 28, 2009 11:52 AM
I love to read interesting post that has knowledge to impart! Thank you for sharing your insights! I will avidly wait for your next blog entry.
Best regards,
Gold Bullion
Posted by Gold Bullion | October 29, 2009 03:51 AM
Jason Grant Garza here ... well isn't interesting that EVERYONE is up in arms over SANCTUARY in SF. The Mayor, BOS, Campos, etc all are concerned over the law, due process, citizen protection, etc. What a FARCE ... if only it was true ... the ordinance is unenforcable (can't bust a city employee for following federal law) and apparently a city employee can't be liable when it breaks federal law. What do I mean by this ... type my name into a google search engine and read how the city broke the law, admitted to it and LEFT THEIR VICTIM FOR DEAD! www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3956&catid=4 When I went to the supervisors, Mayor, etc ... they would NOT even do an investigation thereby NOT finding fault with all the agencies in charge that I went to. Interesting enough with the admission I went back to the city and federal court and asked about the "TESTILYING" in court to have my case thrown out and then to later sign a confession. Sanctuary ... for who? Mayor or BOS really caring, ha, ha, ha!
Posted by Jason Grant Garza | October 29, 2009 02:20 PM