Family blames S.F.'s sanctuary policy in wrongful death suit

[Kanastrous]

Anyone who creates a sanctuary for one form of criminal - even if their crimes are regarded as minor - shouldn't be surprised to find other, worse criminals taking advantage of their foolish generosity.

This seems like a non-sequitur. If my city creates a sanctuary for pot-smokers, say, why does it follow that murderers will necessarily take advantage of it, too?

If your city implements that policy in a manner that coincidentally impedes the investigation of murder, it might. For example, evidence discovered as the result of a narcotics investigation in Los Angeles is left unactioned by pot-haven San Francisco, that could advance arrests for a murder - just to speculate.

[irishmick79]

Fuck you too. It's not an issue of due process, it's an issue of local city ordinances grossly diverging from clearly established federal law. Sure, you can make an argument that immigration law needs to be substantially rewritten to be more fair, and hell, I'll agree with you. But until then, blow your 'due process' shit out of your ass.

Of course it’s an issue of due process, you ignorant little shit. ICE has a well-established history of violating the human rights and ignoring due process granted to (suspected) illegal immigrants, people who are (suspected of) committing a non-violent “crime” –- a crime in which the “victim” happens to actually encourage. ICE doesn’t like it when other people ignore due process and impede their work of ignoring due process, so now you’re here bitching about it.

What’s more, you have yet to provide any evidence that suggests that SF is actually making it impossible for ICE to get their hands on convicted felons, rather than simply making them jump through all the legal hoops they should have to do. Provide some evidence that this one case is anything more than a (monumental) fuck-up.

What the fuck is your problem? I'm not saying it's impossible, jackass. I'm saying SFPD makes it very, very difficult for ICE to get its hands on people for reasons that have nothing to do with due process.

And of course this is a fuck up - only it's SFPD's fault, which is the basic point I was trying to make. Apparently that went over your head.

As far as evidence goes, how about the original story? How about the text of the fucking ordinance? How about I'm an eye witness to it? And how about this?

It's an executive directive by the Mayor of San Francisco released in 2007.

By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by Section 3.100 of the San Francisco Charter to provide administration and oversight of all departments and governmental units in the executive branch of the City and County of San Francisco, I do hereby issue this Executive Directive to become effective immediately:

1. Departments must ensure that departmental rules, regulations and protocol adhere with San Francisco’s Sanctuary City status, as designated by Chapter 12H of the City Administrative Code. Key provisions of this local law include:

a. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco may assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation, detention or arrest proceedings unless such assistance is specifically required by federal law.

b. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco may require information about or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of an individual when providing services or benefits by the City or County of San
Francisco except as specifically required by federal law.

2. Departments that provide public services must keep updated written protocols that describe compliance with Chapter 12H of the Administrative Code. A written description of current departmental protocols, and subsequent updates to these protocols, must be copied to the Human Rights Commission and the Immigrants Rights Commission of the City and County of San Francisco.

3. The Human Rights Commission and the Immigrants Rights Commission of the City and County of San Francisco shall maintain updated versions of these written departmental protocols and shall make them available to the public by request.

4. Departments are instructed to incorporate education on the City’s Sanctuary City status into regular employee trainings and orientations.
5. Departments are also instructed to incorporate education on the City’s Sanctuary City status into regular community outreach, and engage in proactive community outreach on this subject where appropriate.

What's the message there, buddy? Again, Don't cooperate with ICE. Is it really that hard to see how an SFPD employee wouldn't ask about a subject's immigration status, and not mention said status to ICE even if the subject is a felon? The policy is explicitly designed to discourage contact with ICE on immigration related matters, and you don't need to be all that bright to see how that policy can result in situations like this one.

Look, say what you will about immigration policy - it certainly needs to get changed. At least recognize that discussion is a separate debate, and this one is a matter of jurisdiction. The bottom line is that until the law is rewritten by congress, the law needs to be enforced, if for any reason to demonstrate to people just how absurd it is.

And provide to me an example of a country that doesn't implement some sort of restrictions on immigration. Virtually every country in the world has some sort of restrictive immigration policy, and outlines enforcement policy.

[Turin]

What the fuck is your problem?

You mean, other than some ICE shmuck whining about how difficult life is when other people do the same thing ICE does? Nothing, really.

I'm not saying it's impossible, jackass. I'm saying SFPD makes it very, very difficult for ICE to get its hands on people for reasons that have nothing to do with due process.

Still waiting for you to actually make some kind of argument to back that up other than your say-so.

And of course this is a fuck up - only it's SFPD's fault, which is the basic point I was trying to make. Apparently that went over your head.

That's not the fucking point you've been making, you dishonest little shit. You've been painting the sanctuary policy as the source of the problem. If the city government's policy is the problem, then it isn't a fuck-up by the SFPD (unless you're suggesting that the SFPD should go against city policy, of course).

As far as evidence goes, how about the original story?

You mean the original story that shows the SFPD violating the policy?

How about the text of the fucking ordinance?

Sweet zombie jesus -- you mean the text of the fucking ordinance that I already demonstrated explicitly requires that convicted felons be handed over to ICE?

How about I'm an eye witness to it?

You're an eyewitness to the SFPD "being difficult." Boo-fucking-hoo.

And how about this?

Are you fucking retarded? Why do you keep quoting the policy when it says the opposite of what you're saying? The policy requires that the city hand over fuckers like Ramos who are actually convicted to ICE, but that they aren't required to do ICE's dirty work for them on otherwise law-abiding (allegedly) illegal immigrants.

What's the message there, buddy? Again, Don't cooperate with ICE. Is it really that hard to see how an SFPD employee wouldn't ask about a subject's immigration status, and not mention said status to ICE even if the subject is a felon?

Hello, McFly? McFly? Are you in there? The policy you quoted requires that city agencies cooperate with ICE if they convict someone of a felony. You're trying (poorly) to create an argument that the culture created by the policy exceeds the explicit mandate of the policy. So show me some fucking evidence of that, other than this one-off case and your fucking say-so. Put up or shut up.

Look, say what you will about immigration policy - it certainly needs to get changed."

Translation: here I'm going to pretend to meet you halfway so you'll be more inclined to agree with me.

At least recognize that discussion is a separate debate, and this one is a matter of jurisdiction. The bottom line is that until the law is rewritten by congress, the law needs to be enforced, if for any reason to demonstrate to people just how absurd it is.

Oh please, don't pretend that this is really just some petty jurisdictional dick-waving instead of the city of SF taking an ethical stand.

And provide to me an example of a country that doesn't implement some sort of restrictions on immigration. Virtually every country in the world has some sort of restrictive immigration policy, and outlines enforcement policy.

Ooo, a red herring and a strawman!

[irishmick79]

San Francisco admits to shielding Immigrant Felons

Sanctuary City Raises Questions

So, the city basically admits that they've been keeping people out of view of ICE in contradiction to their own policy. I'm citing the policy because the sanctuary policy explicitly describes the attitude that city officials should be taking towards cooperation with ICE, and you see the results of it in SFPD's fuck up in this case. Basically, unless a court twists your arm, don't do it.

And this is an issue of jurisdictional dick waving. The basic problem is that San Francisco created a jurisdictional issue with this ordinance because it is directly contradictory to established Federal Law. Congress has clearly claimed domain over Immigration policy, and constitutionally that means that Federal law has supremacy in issues of conflicting ordinances and statutes.

Look, the issue with immigration law rests with congress and the federal judiciary. If you want to change it, you need to get congress to rewrite the law or you need to get the judiciary to address the constitutional issues in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Until then, it's the law, and it should be enforced.

[Turin]

San Francisco admits to shielding Immigrant Felons

Oh, look, you finally provided some evidence of your assertions. Of course, you'll also note:

Mayor Gavin Newsom says the city will stop the practice.

So, the city basically admits that they've been keeping people out of view of ICE in contradiction to their own policy.

Okay, conceded on that then.

And this is an issue of jurisdictional dick waving. <snip irrelevant bullshit> Until then, it's the law, and it should be enforced.

Or, if the federal government is violating its ethical duty to protect the human rights of people within its borders... you can refuse to cooperate. Not legally, no, but that's not what I'm arguing. Thus, an ethical issue, not simply a legal one.