SF supervisors approve policy of denying federal immigration hold requests

|
(35)
Sup. John Avalos sponsored the legislation and opposed the effort to carve-out exceptions to its protections.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Chambers erupted in raucous celebration and chants of “Si se puede!” this afternoon as the board gave unanimous approval to a new city policy of refusing most detention hold requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has used its controversial Secure Communities program to learn when undocumented immigrants end up in local jails and to have them held for deportation.

The legislation by Sup. John Avalos is intended to build trust between law enforcement and immigrants, which can be reluctant to report crimes such a domestic violence or buglaries for fear of deportation. “People who have to deal with the devastation that Secure Communities causes, they’re the ones who brought this forward,” Avalos said.

Those advocates had to wait a week for this momentus occasion because of amendments that were introduced last week, prompted by opposition to the measure by Mayor Ed Lee and Police Chief Greg Suhr, who expressed concern that it would shield violent felons from deportation.

Those amendments were introduced by Sup. Jane Kim, who had supported the original measure without them but sought to broaden support for the measure. Her amendments make exceptions for those convicted of violent felonies, sex trafficking, child molestation, and use of a gun in commission of a felony, although they call for police to consider factors such as a dependent child before allowing ICE to take custody of an undocumented immigrant.

Avalos opposed the amendments, saying “any carve-outs deter the victims of crimes from reaching out to law enforcement.” The amendments were also criticized by Sup. David Campos, who called them “counterproductive to public safety.” But both accepted them and called the measure an important victory.

“What’s happening in this chamber is a victory for the immigrant communities of San Francisco and all communities in San Francisco,” Campos said in English before repeating it in Spanish. “Let’s emphasize the common ground that we have found.”

The ordinance is set to receive final approval next week when it’s heard on second reading. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi -- who has supported the legislation since its inception and who will oversee its implementation in the jail -- said his office had just received the latest amendments and is still reviewing them.

“It’s the unintended consequences that bring me here before you today,” Mirkarimi told his former colleagues at the board, saying he wants to make sure the new policy is clear enough so that even deputies working in the middle of the night would know how to handle ICE requests. “Changes in the legislation do pose some operational concerns.”

Mirkarimi had already instituted policies of resisting many federal immigration hold requests, joining with San Jose, Berkeley, and other cities who oppose the S-Comm program, and this ordinance broadened and codified those policies.

The legislation was strongly supported by the city’s Domestic Violence Consortium, representing an ironic turn of events when Mayor Lee -- who waged a protracted and unsuccessful campaign to remove Sheriff Mirkarimi from office for grabbing his wife’s arm last year -- threatened to veto it. Avalos also placed second in a crowded field of candidates when Lee was elected mayor in 2011.

It was Lee's veto threat that ultimately weakened the legislation, a move opposed by activists who work on domestic violence issues. But Kim made clear that despite her amendments, she strongly opposes S-Comm and its local impacts.

“We believe the S-Comm program is deeply flawed,” Kim said, telling the story of a constituent who feared calling the police after their home had been burglarized. “No one should fear calling the police when they need help.”  

Comments

to anything like the degree that is implied here. Which goes to show that although the Supes have moved to the right, they are still well to the left of the average SF voter.

My understanding is that ICE can still detain any illegal based on an anonymous tipoff. So this may lead to illegally simply being detained in different ways.

SF cannot vary too far from federal policy without risks, as it has found out with the medical MJ issue.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

So the board votes unanimously to defy federal immigration holds, but they are somehow "not sympathetic" to immigrants. And San Francisco has more than two dozen well-functioning marijuana dispensaries, fully supported by city government and most citizens, and that's somehow not working out either. Lemme guess: you don't live here?

Posted by steven on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

So yes, most people do not want to give breaks to illegals but the Supes do. Problem.

And ask Oakland about how their medical MJ clinics are doing. Not sow ell, as the Fed's are cracking down on them, and will here too.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Posted by anon on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 5:34 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:47 am

How do yoiu know how they think?

Posted by guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:59 am

crushed John Avalos, showing that the average SF voter, city-wide, is more moderate than most here believe.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:12 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:40 am

Oh, the irony. The pathos.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 4:01 pm

Jason Grant Garza ... Ross advocating ... what? That is NOT what I am TOLD by ROSS and the Mayor's Office on Disability (at the end of the video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xax7ksytpu4

I mean in the END ... ROSS could NOT even walk me ACROSS the street to DPH to INSURE that I got LEGALLY required MEDICAL CARE. Watch the rest of the videos ....

Yes, the IRONY .. DV but Disabled ?

So what so this about DUE PROCESS ... what DUE PROCESS without ACCOUNTABILITY http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/07/access_denied_no_health_care_...

and now the KIM investigation into BAD, CORRUPT Police Investigations ...I can NOT get a meeting to show the SUPERVISOR for the so called HEARING .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtqja9Up02A and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DogpfAUdBg4

Shall I show you the IRONY of DAVID CHIU's "Civil Gideon"? Go to youtube and watch the videos .....

Comments, realizations, maybe a little "eye opening" ...

Keep drinking the KOOLAID ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

Why should we deport members of MS-13, Citizens!

They vote progressive, don't they?

Posted by Not Enough Troll Barriers! on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 6:09 am

After he spoke, Sheriff Ross fired his six-shooters into the sky, hopping from foot to foot.

Posted by Chromefields on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 7:58 am

Don't think he can do that. Isn't he still barred from owning firearms?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 7:30 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 7:42 pm

Sorry, in fact they were just cap guns. My bad.

Posted by Chromefields on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 9:32 am

That's a federal law so it would be hard to carve out an exemption for Ross, especially since his day-to-day job really doesn't put him in harm's way, except of getting a paper cut perhaps.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 9:56 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 10:12 am

exception can be granted by a judge if a firearm is essential for carrying out duties, and Ross isn't the only person in SFSD with a DV rap sheet.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 10:25 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 10:11 am

Avalos sold out to the right again. :(

Kim sells out to the right as uasual. :(

Who originally backed out, allowing the legislatioin to be weakened?

Pathetic!

Posted by guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 8:57 am
Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:11 am

San Francisco should refuse cooperation with DHS on ALL matters - cease any contact and expel those agents of oppression from our shores. Imagine SFO's immigration booths unmanned - allowing free entry for ALL oppressed peoples landing here. Imagine the oppressed streaming across our bridges, finally able to experience one moment of freedom after living under the fear of massive deportation for so long. Our streets would be so lively, the air redolent with the richness of cooking tamales and the joyful sounds of marimba. Diversity would be present everywhere!!!

Brothers and sisters - I hope we work towards this vision. Let's put the "sanctuary" BACK IN "Sanctuary City." ahora es el momento!!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 9:37 am

Sovereign Sanctuary Nation. We welcome all felons, homeless, insane and economically useless people to build a new Zion.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 10:27 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 1:11 pm

USA won the America's Cup today.

Posted by Chromefields on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 1:04 pm

he suddenly takes an interest when it's a proxy for the economic war he is also losing.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 1:42 pm

beat out those Kiwi's.

Go America!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

i never cared for ice much...they are too faceless for a democracy. having said that, i'd pick ice over all our subversive supes and that mirkarimi character any day. its very obvious to me that they want to tear america apart...as evidenced by wanting violent illegals to ravage the city at will...not to mention the daily circus atmosphere that prevails at that level of SF gov't...

Posted by Guest will on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 3:11 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 3:23 pm

The problem with carving out an exception for sex trafficking is that there's a new California law that makes the definition of sex trafficking so overbroad that anyone getting any kind of an income from sex work can be considered a "sex trafficker." One prominent sex worker (I forget her name) mentioned that if she gives her son money for college, he's considered a sex trafficker under the law. Sex workers are workers just like anyone else. They may be supporting other members of their households, some of whom may be adults. All of those people can be convicted of "sex trafficking" now.

That's just one of the problems with the carve outs. Campos and Avalos are totally right. Nevertheless, what the supervisors passed represents a step forward.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 7:33 am

He also is fine with many other felonies and always sides with criminals over law enforcement.

The fact that you want more protection for an illegal felon than for the victims of their crimes says it all really.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 7:47 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 8:39 am

Or a cop, Asian or successful person that he did.

Posted by anon on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 9:16 am

You have no coherent response to the substance, so you have nothing to fall back on except ad hominems.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

opposing law enforcement agencies. It's helpful to know that when seeking to assess how much weight to give to his commentary. On this topic, it seems, not so much because of inherent bias.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 4:39 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.