Even this sanctuary policy won’t fly in San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO — Based on the events of the past week, I think it’s fair to say that the Board of Supervisors has earned a new name for its stately chambers: The outer limits.

That would accurately characterize the desire of several supervisors to push the limits of sound and reasonable policy, to boldly go where no public body has gone before, beyond the boundaries of state and federal law in pursuit of a misguided ideological agenda.

But hey, they’re doing it for the children — the undocumented ones. Don’t worry about it.

So says Supervisor David Campos, the starry-eyed defender of undocumented, errant youth who wants local police to ignore state and federal laws by not reporting juveniles charged with felonies to immigration authorities.

As they like to say down at the old ballpark, bad call. By the time Campos’ proposed legislation hit the news, there had not been a brush back from the public so heated since Supervisor Chris Daly tried to stop the Blue Angels from participating in Fleet Week.

But I’ll give Campos credit. When I warned him some months back that the hounds of hell wound descend on him if he chose to openly skirt the law, he said he truly believed in what he was doing. And the fact that he could get several of his fellow supervisors to bury their heads in the sand along with him shows what true believing is all about.

Much of the news last week centered on the release by the Mayor’s Office of a confidential memo prepared by the City Attorney’s Office on Campos’ proposed legislation. It made for some good sparring. If only it were enough to deflect the content of the memo, which essentially said that the legislation could blow up The City’s entire sanctuary policy and open San Francisco to legal action, not to mention bring more inquires from Department of Justice officials already investigating The City’s previous problems in handling required immigration matters.

Not covered in the opinion is that the board went out of its way to ignore judicial findings on the sanctuary policy, including one by the California Court of Appeal that found that San Francisco was required to notify the federal government when an undocumented immigrant is arrested for a variety of drug crimes.

Although that case — Fonseca v. Fong (as in the former police chief) — has garnered much attention in immigration rights circles, the board refused to hold any hearings on it, something that no doubt would be the subject of future litigation. And trust me on this, lawsuits would flow to City Hall faster than a Friday protest rally — just ask the group that originally filed it.

“I thought we settled arguments about whether cites could ignore state and federal law?” said Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, the organization that brought the lawsuit against The City’s sanctuary policy. “There is a rule of law that exists in San Francisco, whether some of its politicians want to acknowledge it or not. But it just shows that some people in San Francisco have an ideological agenda that makes public safety a secondary consideration.”

Of course, that doesn’t even embrace the obvious: Why should suspected criminals get a break that others don’t? Campos and his supporters want only undocumented youths found guilty — not just charged — of a felony reported to immigration officials.

That’s not a sanctuary policy, that’s a safe haven for lawbreakers.

San Francisco is already facing a potentially explosive lawsuit from the family of Anthony Bologna, who was allegedly murdered along with two of his sons last year by suspected MS-13 gang member Edwin Ramos, who was allowed to stay in the country illegally in part because of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy regarding juveniles.

The fringe element pushing this policy change insists that defying state and federal law is akin to what San Francisco did when it challenged same-sex marriage statutes. Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t remember any arguments on the marriage issue regarding illegal immigration or pending criminal charges.

This is a clear case of unintended consequences. Campos and the other supervisors currently sponsoring the legislation have so completely overshot the limits of reason that they have only marginal public support. And if they pursue this path — and cost the city millions in legal defense — they’ll be shown to be so reckless that their own political careers will be jeopardized.

But if their desire is to bring The City’s whole wafer-thin sanctuary policy down and have it rewritten by the courts, then they’re making all the right moves.

Ken Garcia appears Tuesdays and Fridays in The Examiner. Check out his blog at sfexaminer.com/opinion or e-mail him
at kgarcia@sfexaminer.com.