Showdown: Gavin Newsom vs. Sanctuary City Policy
Published October 27, 2009 @ 01:35PM PT
In the absence of sound immigration reform, states and local jurisdictions have had to come up with creative ways to uphold the law while also protecting the most vulnerable residents. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation last week requiring that undocumented youth can only be turned over to federal immigration officials after they are convicted of a felony. Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to give 'no credence' to this new policy even though the Board of Supervisors has enough votes to overturn his veto.
The new policy will prevent innocent youth from being separated from their families and from being unnecessarily reported to ICE for deportation. Mayor Gavin Newsom, gearing up for his gubernatorial run, wants all undocumented residents to be turned over to ICE upon arrest, denying immigrant juveniles the right to due process. The City of San Francisco is clearly worried about the costs of litigation even though sanctuary city policies have been in place for the past twenty years without serious litigation
When it comes to legal rationale, San Francisco has a right to exercise due process of law, which is entitled to everyone in this country regardless of legal status. Professor Pratheepan Gulasekaram of Santa Clara Law School argues that the city’s sanctuary policy is defensible:
On the merits of the intra-city debate, I believe that the public safety rationales related to community cooperation with law enforcement, along with a desire to see families kept together, and all people treated humanely, argue in favor of the Supervisor’s bold policy. In addition, it does not stop federal authorities from enforcing federal mandates.
The new sanctuary city policy strikes a good balance between the principles of law and family values by reporting young people to ICE only upon their formal indictment. There is no point in causing extraordinary grievances by breaking up families when someone has commited no crime. Alleged illegal presence is not a crime and does not merit deportation in the face of congressional failure to reform antiquated immigration laws.
Photo credit: SFBrit (Creative Commons Attribution)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Students in California Fight Back Tuition Hikes
-
Massachusetts Looks to Revive Instate-Tuition
-
Efforts to Exclude Abortion From HCR Trumps Concern About Undocumented
Comments (6)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Prerna obtained her Masters degree in International Relations in 2007 and took a hiatus from academia. During this break, she co-founded DreamActivist.org and helped launch a program for immigrant youth in the Bay Area (S4FC). Currently, she is also a Managing Editor at The Sanctuary. Views expressed on this blog are her own and not that of any organization currently affiliated with her. Contact email - prerna@change.org
Prerna;
You have many distorted facts in your article. You talk about denying immigrant juveniles the right to due process, however, illegal aliens do not have the right to due process in thsi country.
You say There is no point in causing extraordinary grievances ... when someone has commited no crime., but according to the resolution, it's when someone has been convicted of no crime. They could have well committed the crime, however, they may not have been convicted of it.
Finally if illegal presence is not a crime, why do you call it illegal??. I'm sorry, but legal presence is not a crime.
Posted by Kurt Thialfad on 10/27/2009 @ 05:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I attended the SF Board of Supervisors meeting today where the resolution, to expand the sanctuary laws by waiting until an illegal alien minor actually does some serious damage before he can be turned over to federal authorities for deportation, was passed. The 3 nay votes were by Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Michelle Allioto-Pier, and Carman Chu. I gotta say 'thank you' guys - you rock!
Meanwhile, Supervisors Dave Compost, Dave Chiu, Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, Eric Mar, and the rest - you guys suck!
Posted by Wire Paladin on 10/27/2009 @ 06:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I find it funny that you support immigration. Yet, your city is one of the culprits, contributing to my areas high poverty-level among immigrants.
In my district, your name would be added to the list of people that need blaming. Your city has so much wealth, but I'm sure some of the thousands of homeless, that line your streets are undocumented. Why don't you fix that? Instead, your rich pass A$$-loads of environmental legislation, negatively impacting everyone,(undocumented and citizens,) in my part of California.
You don't have an ag. commissioner. The only ag. in San Francisco is the "hydroponic" kind. So, why does your city get to delegate,"what is BEST for all of us?" (B/S.) If you want the undocumented to have a fighting chance, your wealth needs to keep their two-cents out of what goes on here; give these people their jobs back. (Of coarse not.) You know all of us could starve your area, this is why you've pulled out all the stops. If you can't exploit us, you'll make sure we have no water. This is the equivalent of "Eminent Domain," but you won't have to pay for any land. You'll just bankrupt the people who live off of it; pass legislation later on that will unbind the water-flow. (I get it.)
I'm "pro-immigrant's rights," so, the fact that your city is willing to GIVE people the right to live in poverty and be exploited, makes me wish I could deport all of you. When you get your butt down here, and "walk the-walk," with me; maybe I'll trust your judgement as far as, "Immigration Law," goes. Until then: keep your mouth shut, stop passing stupid legislation, and take a look at what your area has really done to these people!
Posted by L.S. hope on 10/28/2009 @ 04:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
All of this considered, and believe me, I do consider a lot; is this the way immigration reform should be handled? (Not that keeping children with their families isn't a great thing, it really is.) There just seems to be much wrong with the way things are done in my state,(country,) these days.
If we can bypass Federal Law and exercise the majorities interest, then why do we need politicians? Better yet, why do we need a president? I don't know if immigration is the largest threat facing our country. I can think of 3 things I would change, before I got to immigration reform. Regardless, of the circumstances that brought this issue before the board; it caught my attention. If the laws imposed by our Federal Government, could be considered "out-dated," or "unfair," and can be changed with a few votes; I have a list I'm going to e-mail to my district's supervisor.
Posted by L.S. hope on 10/27/2009 @ 11:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You cannot be a resident of the state or country if you are an illegal alien.
Posted by elliot Foley III on 10/28/2009 @ 09:33AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If the juvenile is in our country illegally then it probably means his/her's parents are also. Solution...deport the whole family together, end of family separation, right?
Posted by Mark Lindley on 10/28/2009 @ 12:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.