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

[Rogue 9]

San Francisco Chronicle

Family blames sanctuary policy in 3 slayings

Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, August 23, 2008

(08-22) 18:14 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco's immigrant sanctuary policies played a "substantial" role in the slayings of a father and two of his sons by allowing city officials to shield the alleged killer from deportation, despite his violent history, according to a legal claim filed Friday on behalf of the victims' family.

The claim is likely to be followed by a wrongful death lawsuit in which the family of Tony Bologna and his sons could seek millions of dollars from the city.

Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were shot to death on a street in the Excelsior district June 22. Edwin Ramos, 21, of El Sobrante, who authorities say is a member of a street gang, has been charged with three counts of murder.

Tony Bologna's wife, Danielle, and other relatives denounced the city's sanctuary practices after The Chronicle reported that Ramos, a Salvadoran native suspected of being in this country illegally, had committed felony attempted robbery and assault as a juvenile.

The Chronicle reported that officials with the Juvenile Probation Department, relying on their interpretation of San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance, had not referred Ramos to federal immigration authorities for possible deportation. The ordinance bars city officials from cooperating with federal crackdowns on illegal immigrants.

After other Chronicle stories on the city's practices appeared, however, City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office reiterated a 1994 legal opinion that nothing in the law prevented the city from handing over juveniles to federal immigration authorities, if the minors have committed felonies.

The city attorney has 45 days to respond to the Bologna family's claim. The city typically rejects such claims, after which plaintiffs are free to file suit.

A spokesman for Herrera declined to comment on the matter Friday, saying attorneys had not yet reviewed the claim.

In response to the claim, Mayor Gavin Newsom released a statement saying, "I am deeply saddened by the Bologna family's terrible loss. My heart goes out to the family during this difficult time."

Nathan Ballard, the mayor's communications director, said it would be inappropriate for Newsom to comment on the specifics of the legal claim.

The claim does not make a specific request for damages.

Lawyers for Bologna's wife and his two surviving children assert in the claim that the city's sanctuary policy was illegal, reckless and a "substantial factor" in the slayings.

The claim says the city knew that Ramos was an illegal immigrant and was part of a gang, the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), that attacked Latinos and African American men who were not members of the gang.

Police have theorized that Ramos shot the Bolognas because he mistook them for rival gang members. The father and his sons were shot in their car as they returned home from a Sunday afternoon family barbecue.

Ramos' attorney, Robert Amparan, has denied his client was a gang member or an illegal immigrant. Ramos has pleaded not guilty to the murder counts.

The Bolognas' claim asserts that the city knew that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials were targeting illegal immigrant gang members for removal from the United States and would have sought to deport Ramos immediately had they known of his juvenile record.

"It was highly foreseeable that Ramos, upon his return to the streets of San Francisco, would murder men who appeared to be Latinos or African Americans," the claim says.

The claim places blame on the city's Juvenile Probation Department for adopting "official and unofficial policies" that amounted to unlawfully harboring illegal immigrants who committed violent crimes.

The claim says the city's sanctuary policies and practices violated federal laws that grant "unfettered discretion" to local authorities to report to immigration officials any "dangerous person" not in this country legally.

"There are clearly many, many restrictions on when and whether (San Francisco) police officers can communicate with the federal government on an individual's immigration status - and those restrictions played a role, in a significant way, to horrible events that unfolded on June 22," said one of the family's lawyers, Kris Kobach, a one-time counsel to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"It was just a horrific tragedy because it was preventable," Kobach said. "If the city had followed the law, Anthony, Matthew and Michael Bologna would most certainly be alive today."

The claim cites a 2006 bulletin to police officers signed by Chief Heather Fong limiting how and when officers could communicate with immigration authorities.

It also cites a directive issued by Newsom in March 2007, which prohibited "dissemination" of immigration information by police or other city departments to the federal government unless the agencies were required to do so by U.S. law.

The claim says the city created an environment that was hostile to anyone who would report offenders for deportation.

"All of these official enactments, orders, mandates and endorsements of ... sanctuary policies were reinforced by an unwritten but enforced policy that discouraged police officers from reporting any illegal alien," the claim says.

I maintain that the entire elected government of San Francisco should stand for obstruction of justice charges regarding their official policy of hindering the enforcement of U.S. law.

[Master of Ossus]

That policy is actually MUCH worse than it's painted as being in that article. Apart from playing a substantial factor in letting Ramos go free and kill the three people (this is AFTER he had twice been arrested for violent crimes by the city), it's also used city funds to fly convicted crack dealers to Southern California safe-houses, which cost the city thousands of dollars a week, and from which the crack dealers later escaped.

There was a good tag-line about it by some political writer in the Bay Area, where he described how the "Sanctuary" policy was not supposed to provide a "sanctuary" for convicted felons.

[Rogue 9]

That policy is actually MUCH worse than it's painted as being in that article. Apart from playing a substantial factor in letting Ramos go free and kill the three people (this is AFTER he had twice been arrested for violent crimes by the city), it's also used city funds to fly convicted crack dealers to Southern California safe-houses, which cost the city thousands of dollars a week, and from which the crack dealers later escaped.

Which is why:

I maintain that the entire elected government of San Francisco should stand for obstruction of justice charges regarding their official policy of hindering the enforcement of U.S. law.

I've held that position for some time; there just isn't much occasion to talk about it on the board.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, I've never heard of this policy before. It sounds almost Twilight Zone bizarre. Exactly how is the policy worded?

[irishmick79]

San Francisco Sanctuary Ordinance

SEC. 12H.1. CITY AND COUNTY OF REFUGE.
It is hereby affirmed that the City and County of San Francisco is a City and County of Refuge.

(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)

SEC. 12H.2. USE OF CITY FUNDS PROHIBITED.
No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Chapter shall include, but shall not be limited to:

(a) Assisting or cooperating, in one's official capacity, with any Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law.

(b) Assisting or cooperating, in one's official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City and County, State or federal criminal laws.

(c) Requesting information about, or disseminating information regarding, the immigration status of any individual, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City and County of San Francisco upon immigration status, except as required by federal or State statute or regulation, City and County public assistance criteria, or court decision.

(d) Including on any application, questionnaire or interview form used in relation to benefits, services or opportunities provided by the City and County of San Francisco any question regarding immigration status other than those required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision. Any such questions existing or being used by the City and County at the time this Chapter is adopted shall be deleted within sixty days of the adoption of this Chapter.

(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)

SEC. 12H.2-1. CHAPTER PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit, or be construed as prohibiting, a law enforcement officer from identifying and reporting any person pursuant to State or federal law or regulation who is in custody after being booked for the alleged commission of a felony and is suspected of violating the civil provisions of the immigration laws. In addition, nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any City and County department, agency, commission, officer or employee from (a) reporting information to the INS regarding an individual who has been booked at any county jail facility, and who has previously been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under State law; (b) cooperating with an INS request for information regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law; or (c) reporting information as required by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision, regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law. For purposes of this Section, an individual has been "convicted" of a felony when: (a) there has been a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (b) all direct appeal rights have been exhausted or waived; or (c) the appeal period has lapsed.

However, no officer, employee or law enforcement agency of the City and County of San Francisco shall stop, question, arrest or detain any individual solely because of the individual's national origin or immigration status. In addition, in deciding whether to report an individual to the INS under the circumstances described in this Section, an officer, employee or law enforcement agency of the City and County of San Francisco shall not discriminate among individuals on the basis of their ability to speak English or perceived or actual national origin.
This Section shall not apply in cases where an individual is arrested and/or convicted for failing to obey a lawful order of a police officer during a public assembly or for failing to disperse after a police officer has declared an assembly to be unlawful and has ordered dispersal.

Nothing herein shall be construed or implemented so as to discourage any person, regardless of immigration status, from reporting criminal activity to law enforcement agencies.

(Added by Ord. 282-92, App. 9/4/92; amended by Ord. 238-93, App. 8/4/93)

SEC. 12H.3. CLERK OF BOARD TO TRANSMIT COPIES OF THIS CHAPTER; INFORMING CITY EMPLOYEES.
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall send copies of this Chapter, including any future amendments thereto that may be made, to every department, agency and commission of the City and County of San Francisco, to California's United States Senators, and to the California Congressional delegation, the Commissioner of the INS, the United States Attorney General, and the Secretary of State and the President of the United States. Each appointing officer of the City and County of San Francisco shall inform all employees under her or his jurisdiction of the prohibitions in this ordinance, the duty of all of her or his employees to comply with the prohibitions in this ordinance, and that employees who fail to comply with the prohibitions of the ordinance shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Each city and county employee shall be given a written directive with instructions for implementing the provisions of this Chapter.

(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)

SEC. 12H.4. ENFORCEMENT.
The Human Rights Commission shall review the compliance of the City and County departments, agencies, commissions and employees with the mandates of this ordinance in particular instances in which there is question of noncompliance or when a complaint alleging noncompliance has been lodged.

(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)

SEC. 12H.5. CITY UNDERTAKING LIMITED TO PROMOTION OF GENERAL WELFARE.
In undertaking the adoption and enforcement of this Chapter, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. This Chapter is not intended to create any new rights for breach of which the City is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. This section shall not be construed to limit or proscribe any other existing rights or remedies possessed by such person.

(Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89)

SEC. 12H.6. SEVERABILITY.
If any part of this ordinance, or the application thereof, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby, and this ordinance shall otherwise continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance, and each of them, are severable.

Needless to say, ICE fucking hates this ordinance. There is constant dickery going on between ICE's offices in California and SFPD because of this.

[Turin]

SEC. 12H.2-1. CHAPTER PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit, or be construed as prohibiting, a law enforcement officer from identifying and reporting any person pursuant to State or federal law or regulation who is in custody after being booked for the alleged commission of a felony and is suspected of violating the civil provisions of the immigration laws. In addition, nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any City and County department, agency, commission, officer or employee from (a) reporting information to the INS regarding an individual who has been booked at any county jail facility, and who has previously been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under State law; (b) cooperating with an INS request for information regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law; or (c) reporting information as required by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision, regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law. For purposes of this Section, an individual has been "convicted" of a felony when: (a) there has been a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (b) all direct appeal rights have been exhausted or waived; or (c) the appeal period has lapsed.

Okay, I'll admit maybe I'm just not reading this right, but shouldn't this section have prevented this from happening? They're not handing people over to ICE willy-nilly (which I don't have much problem with), but they are handing over convicted criminals.

[irishmick79]

SEC. 12H.2-1. CHAPTER PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit, or be construed as prohibiting, a law enforcement officer from identifying and reporting any person pursuant to State or federal law or regulation who is in custody after being booked for the alleged commission of a felony and is suspected of violating the civil provisions of the immigration laws. In addition, nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any City and County department, agency, commission, officer or employee from (a) reporting information to the INS regarding an individual who has been booked at any county jail facility, and who has previously been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under State law; (b) cooperating with an INS request for information regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law; or (c) reporting information as required by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision, regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law. For purposes of this Section, an individual has been "convicted" of a felony when: (a) there has been a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (b) all direct appeal rights have been exhausted or waived; or (c) the appeal period has lapsed.

Okay, I'll admit maybe I'm just not reading this right, but shouldn't this section have prevented this from happening? They're not handing people over to ICE willy-nilly (which I don't have much problem with), but they are handing over convicted criminals.

Nope. They put in that provision to cover their ass and so the Feds had a more difficult time challenging the ordinance in court if they chose to. They very, very rarely turn somebody over to us, and only do so after prodding by the courts.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Wow, I've never heard of this policy before. It sounds almost Twilight Zone bizarre. Exactly how is the policy worded?

The entire policy can be read here.

Or you can just read on...

SEC. 12H.2. USE OF CITY FUNDS PROHIBITED.
No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Chapter shall include, but shall not be limited to:

(a) Assisting or cooperating, in one's official capacity, with any Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law.

(b) Assisting or cooperating, in one's official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City and County, State or federal criminal laws.

(c) Requesting information about, or disseminating information regarding, the immigration status of any individual, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City and County of San Francisco upon immigration status, except as required by federal or State statute or regulation, City and County public assistance criteria, or court decision.

(d) Including on any application, questionnaire or interview form used in relation to benefits, services or opportunities provided by the City and County of San Francisco any question regarding immigration status other than those required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision. Any such questions existing or being used by the City and County at the time this Chapter is adopted shall be deleted within sixty days of the adoption of this Chapter.

SEC. 12H.2-1. CHAPTER PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit, or be construed as prohibiting, a law enforcement officer from identifying and reporting any person pursuant to State or federal law or regulation who is in custody after being booked for the alleged commission of a felony and is suspected of violating the civil provisions of the immigration laws. In addition, nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any City and County department, agency, commission, officer or employee from (a) reporting information to the INS regarding an individual who has been booked at any county jail facility, and who has previously been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under State law; (b) cooperating with an INS request for information regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law; or (c) reporting information as required by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision, regarding an individual who has been convicted of a felony committed in violation of the laws of the State of California, which is still considered a felony under state law. For purposes of this Section, an individual has been "convicted" of a felony when: (a) there has been a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (b) all direct appeal rights have been exhausted or waived; or (c) the appeal period has lapsed.

However, no officer, employee or law enforcement agency of the City and County of San Francisco shall stop, question, arrest or detain any individual solely because of the individual's national origin or immigration status. In addition, in deciding whether to report an individual to the INS under the circumstances described in this Section, an officer, employee or law enforcement agency of the City and County of San Francisco shall not discriminate among individuals on the basis of their ability to speak English or perceived or actual national origin.
This Section shall not apply in cases where an individual is arrested and/or convicted for failing to obey a lawful order of a police officer during a public assembly or for failing to disperse after a police officer has declared an assembly to be unlawful and has ordered dispersal.

Nothing herein shall be construed or implemented so as to discourage any person, regardless of immigration status, from reporting criminal activity to law enforcement agencies.

[Turin]

Nope. They put in that provision to cover their ass and so the Feds had a more difficult time challenging the ordinance in court if they chose to. They very, very rarely turn somebody over to us, and only do so after prodding by the courts.

All I see in the OP is a bunch of claims made in the suit. The policy says he should have been handed over to ICE. The city attorney is saying that policy says he should have been handed over to ICE. So why wasn't he?

[SpacedTeddyBear]

OK, I guess this is what happens when one goes to the bathroom before hitting the reply button.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that SF will only take action if the person in question had just recently committed a felony, and that if there were any prior felony charges, it is an option for county officials to make a report the the INS.

[irishmick79]

Nope. They put in that provision to cover their ass and so the Feds had a more difficult time challenging the ordinance in court if they chose to. They very, very rarely turn somebody over to us, and only do so after prodding by the courts.

All I see in the OP is a bunch of claims made in the suit. The policy says he should have been handed over to ICE. The city attorney is saying that policy says he should have been handed over to ICE. So why wasn't he?

Several scenarios come to mind. First, and one that I would consider very unlikely given the indicated criminal history, is that the subject Mr. Ramos entered the country illegally and was later granted Temporary Protective Status. TPS is a benefit granted to illegals from certain countries designated by the President which lasts a year, upon which time it has to be renewed. TPS countries are El Salvador, Nicaragua, Sudan, generally places where the level of violence makes deportation virtually impossible as well as impractical. Also, the subject has to be generally free of a criminal history and not be seeking asylum. This is why most subjects with TPS tend to be from central america - they enter illegally and aren't seeking asylum.

Secondly, and what I would consider to be more likely, is that SFPD never bothered to inform ICE that the subject was ever in their custody on various other charges. ICE tends to get a lot of its wanted subjects when they break local laws and wind up in state and local jails. The jailer usually tries to figure out if the subject is legally here or not, and if the subject isn't legal, the jailer will try to get ICE to place an immigration hold, so that ICE agents will come and place the subject in deportation hearings (and into federal custody).

[Turin]

Secondly, and what I would consider to be more likely, is that SFPD never bothered to inform ICE that the subject was ever in their custody on various other charges.

Which, once he's convicted, would have been a violation of SF's policy. Which leads me to my point, which is that it's outright dishonest to say "sanctuary policy leads to killings" if the guy wasn't turned over to ICE in violation of policy.

[Darth Wong]

People often fall through cracks in policy like this, and I believe that this is due, in part, to the fact that when the shit hits the fan, it is the government as a collective which is punished, rather than the individual public-sector employees responsible. Even if they are flagrantly violating policy, who gets sued? The individuals? No, their pockets aren't deep enough. The victims go after the government, and the individuals (who are usually unionized) carry on as if nothing happened.

[irishmick79]

Secondly, and what I would consider to be more likely, is that SFPD never bothered to inform ICE that the subject was ever in their custody on various other charges.

Which, once he's convicted, would have been a violation of SF's policy. Which leads me to my point, which is that it's outright dishonest to say "sanctuary policy leads to killings" if the guy wasn't turned over to ICE in violation of policy.

The explicit message of the ordinance is don't deal with ICE. It's easy to see how a booking officer at a jail wouldn't bother to check with ICE on a subject's immigration status if he thinks that the department will throw some shit his way for it. They simply won't do it unless they're getting their arm twisted by a court.

[irishmick79]

People often fall through cracks in policy like this, and I believe that this is due, in part, to the fact that when the shit hits the fan, it is the government as a collective which is punished, rather than the individual public-sector employees responsible. Even if they are flagrantly violating policy, who gets sued? The individuals? No, their pockets aren't deep enough. The victims go after the government, and the individuals (who are usually unionized) carry on as if nothing happened.

True. I think when you have issues like this where you have clearly conflicting issues of jurdistiction and applicable law, it's easy to see how the public-sector employees on the ground can fuck it up. The government probably deserves to get punished because ultimately they helped to create the policy SNAFU as a collective in the first place.

[Turin]

The explicit message of the ordinance is don't deal with ICE. It's easy to see how a booking officer at a jail wouldn't bother to check with ICE on a subject's immigration status if he thinks that the department will throw some shit his way for it. They simply won't do it unless they're getting their arm twisted by a court.

Maybe English isn't your first language, but the explicit message of the ordinance is "when people are convicted of felonies, turn them over to ICE if it's suspected they're illegal immigrants." If the police ticket someone for traffic violations or misdemeanor BS, they're not cooperating with ICE. Which is frankly in the interest of the city in a lot of ways (because that sort of person is 9/10 going to be someone who's working somewhere in the city and being a productive member of society despite their immigration status), and arguably a principled stance based on the recent cattle-rustling atmosphere at ICE.

Nothing explicit permitting the situation with Ramos at all. Someone fucked up, big time. If you want to make an argument that this policy creates am implicit culture where no cooperation is permitted whatsoever... well, I await your evidence.

[irishmick79]

The explicit message of the ordinance is don't deal with ICE. It's easy to see how a booking officer at a jail wouldn't bother to check with ICE on a subject's immigration status if he thinks that the department will throw some shit his way for it. They simply won't do it unless they're getting their arm twisted by a court.

Maybe English isn't your first language, but the explicit message of the ordinance is "when people are convicted of felonies, turn them over to ICE if it's suspected they're illegal immigrants." If the police ticket someone for traffic violations or misdemeanor BS, they're not cooperating with ICE. Which is frankly in the interest of the city in a lot of ways (because that sort of person is 9/10 going to be someone who's working somewhere in the city and being a productive member of society despite their immigration status), and arguably a principled stance based on the recent cattle-rustling atmosphere at ICE.

Nothing explicit permitting the situation with Ramos at all. Someone fucked up, big time. If you want to make an argument that this policy creates am implicit culture where no cooperation is permitted whatsoever... well, I await your evidence.

How about I'm an employee with ICE and I see the attitude out of SFPD first hand, asshole. The 'cooperation' only occurs when ICE finally gives up and gets a federal or state court to tell SFPD to help us. I know what the damned ordinance says, but I'm telling you how it actually gets applied.

[Turin]

How about I'm an employee with ICE and I see the attitude out of SFPD first hand, asshole. The 'cooperation' only occurs when ICE finally gives up and gets a federal or state court to tell SFPD to help us. I know what the damned ordinance says, but I'm telling you how it actually gets applied.

Yeah, it must really suck for you guys ICE to have to actually go through that whole "due process" thing. I mean, geez, what do people think you are, law enforcement officials? My sympathies.

[irishmick79]

How about I'm an employee with ICE and I see the attitude out of SFPD first hand, asshole. The 'cooperation' only occurs when ICE finally gives up and gets a federal or state court to tell SFPD to help us. I know what the damned ordinance says, but I'm telling you how it actually gets applied.

Yeah, it must really suck for you guys ICE to have to actually go through that whole "due process" thing. I mean, geez, what do people think you are, law enforcement officials? My sympathies.

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.

[Kanastrous]

There was a good tag-line about it by some political writer in the Bay Area, where he described how the "Sanctuary" policy was not supposed to provide a "sanctuary" for convicted felons.

Illicit entry into the country is still against the law.

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.

[Turin]

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.

[Rogue 9]

So Turin, you mean to say you don't see a problem with the San Francisco police sheltering known criminals? San Francisco and other sanctuary cities prevent due process from occurring by keeping the suspects out of the hands of the authorities in the first place. For any other federal crime police will hand over suspects to the Feds; screaming that doing something completely different for illegal immigrants is normal due process is just stupid. In fact, just for the hell of it, let's refer to the Constitution for a moment.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Not the exact same situation, of course, since it's the federal executive authority doing the demanding instead of another state's, but handing over criminals wanted in another jurisdiction for due process in that jurisdiction is constitutionally mandated procedure. Requiring court proceedings against the city authorities just to get the suspect to his own court proceedings is grossly unnecessary.

[Surlethe]

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?

[Turin]

So Turin, you mean to say you don't see a problem with the San Francisco police sheltering known criminals?

Not if the "crime" is immigration, no. But it's cute that you're effectively assuming guilt in immigration cases ahead of time.

San Francisco and other sanctuary cities prevent due process from occurring by keeping the suspects out of the hands of the authorities in the first place.

They aren't preventing, they're making it actually happen. Which is to say, they actually require that the federal government be able to demonstrate and provide evidence that these people are actual criminals before being able to label them as such.

For any other federal crime police will hand over suspects to the Feds; screaming that doing something completely different for illegal immigrants is normal due process is just stupid.

And for any other federal crime, the government is actually required to provide evidence to the jurisdiction in question demonstrating that they actually have a case. But no, for brown people who speak Spanish, we presume they're guilty, apparently.

Not the exact same situation, of course, since it's the federal executive authority doing the demanding instead of another state's, but handing over criminals wanted in another jurisdiction for due process in that jurisdiction is constitutionally mandated procedure. Requiring court proceedings against the city authorities just to get the suspect to his own court proceedings is grossly unnecessary.

Why? Because you say so? The jurisdiction doesn't have the right (and ethical obligation) to make sure the other jurisdiction isn't full of shit and actually has a case, if the person isn't otherwise a known criminal? You're presuming guilt all over the fucking place here.

[SirNitram]

Of course they are presumed innocent. As anyone who observes the farce that is ICE proceedings knows, the Constitution literally does not enter into it. No Due Process, no bans on inhumane treatment, not even the basic presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And people excuse it everyday.