Tuesday, October 23 , 2018, 6:18 pm | Partly Cloudy 69º

 
 
 
 

Joe Guzzardi: Defiant San Francisco Supervisors Renews Commitment to Lawless Sanctuary City Policy

Eight months after five-time deported, seven-time convicted felon Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez murdered Kate Steinle, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously last week to maintain its dangerous sanctuary policy.

The city’s legislation severely limits local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when the agency seeks to deport dangerous criminals, a stance it first adopted in 1989.

Despite public outcry to tighten enforcement, the supervisors specified that only aliens charged with and convicted of a violent crime within the last seven years would be referred to ICE for removal.

Last year, then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi boasted about his compliance with the sanctuary policy when he said: “My long-held belief is that local law enforcement should not be in the civil immigration detainer business.”

As a result, the San Francisco County District Attorney’s Office refused to prosecute Lopez-Sanchez for what authorities claimed was a decade-old minor drug possession case, and released him without notifying ICE.

A few weeks later, Lopez-Sanchez killed Steinle as she walked along a San Francisco pier with her father.

San Francisco’s history as a sanctuary city — sanctuary for criminal aliens whom federal law mandates be deported — is long, sad and ugly.

In 2007, then-San Francisco Mayor and current Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly announced that the city would not cooperate with federal immigration raids, even though few if any raids could be found on record. Newsom boldly crowed that San Francisco is a sanctuary city, “... make no mistake about it.” U.S. Senate candidate but then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris fully supported Newsom.

The fatal fall-out from the Newsom-Harris criminal alien coddling and their federal law defiance was immediate. In an incident that should have caused San Francisco’s leaders to rethink their sanctuary enthusiasm, Edwin Ramos, an illegal Salvadoran immigrant and MS-13 gang member who had previously attacked a pregnant woman on a bus, shot and killed Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16.

Ramos, who San Francisco had earlier shielded from deportation for his gang-related assault and attempted robbery charges, incorrectly thought one of Bologna’s sons was a rival gangster.

If the murders of the Bolognas and Steinle didn’t wake up San Francisco’s supervisors, nothing ever will. In his statement after the vote, Supervisor John Avalos hailed the board’s decision as one that everyone would be pleased with and one that ensures that illegal immigrants would not lose access to jobs that might become available.

But most San Franciscans are angry at the board’s defiance of public safety. Newly elected Sheriff Vicki Hennessy campaigned on reversing San Francisco’s sanctuary law, and trounced Mirkarimi in his re-election bid. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll found that 74 percent of Californians — including two of three Hispanics — oppose sanctuary cities.

As for the jobs Avalos wants to protect for aliens, federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from working, and also bars employers under the penalty of arrest and property seizure from hiring them.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that bans sanctuary cities in any form. But President Barack Obama has no intention of enforcing the 1996 law or any other enforcement legislation.

In a related development, last week the Steinle family filed a federal lawsuit that names the city and county of San Francisco, Mirkarimi and the United States “for their failures to perform mandatory duties and/or for the unconstitutional and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of their officers, officials, agents and/or employees.”

The Steinle case will force sanctuary supporters to defend the indefensible: their unshakeable and illegal commitment to putting aliens’ interests and political correctness ahead of citizens’ rights to protection from criminals.

— Joe Guzzardi is a senior writing fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) who now lives in Pittsburgh. He can be reached at [email protected]. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.