San Francisco board urges sheriff to support city's sanctuary status

San Francisco supervisors on Tuesday affirmed the city's status as an immigrant sanctuary, unanimously approving a resolution urging the sheriff not to participate in a detainer-notification system. 

Michael Macor/San Francisco Chronicle/AP/File
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, right, is lead into the courtroom by San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, left, and Assistant District Attorney Diana Garciaor, center, for his arraignment at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco on July 7, 2015. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national, is the main suspect in the the July 1 waterfront shooting of Kate Steinle, whose death cast an uncomfortable spotlight on a city that proudly declares itself a refuge for immigrants.

San Francisco supervisors vigorously reaffirmed the city's status as a sanctuary city, nearly four months after a woman was killed by a Mexican national who had been released from jail despite federal requests to detain him for deportation proceedings.

The board on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution urging the sheriff not to participate in a detainer-notification system that asks jails to let Immigration Customs and Enforcement officials know when an inmate of interest is being released.

The actions sent a strong but symbolic message to critics who had lambasted the city after the July 1 waterfront shooting of Kate Steinle, including Senate Republicans in Congress who tried but failed earlier in the day to push legislation punishing so-called sanctuary cities.

The death of Ms. Steinle cast an uncomfortable spotlight on a city that proudly declares itself a refuge for immigrants. As outrage mounted nationally, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, criticized San Francisco's sheriff, saying that suspect Juan Francisco Sanchez-Lopez should have been detained.

Mr. Sanchez-Lopez says he found the gun under a bench on the pier, and it accidently fired when he picked it up.

"All of us in this room agree that the death of Kathryn Steinle was senseless and tragic, but what many of us disagree on is the role – if any – that San Francisco's existing sanctuary and due-process-for-all" ordinances played in the event, Supervisor Malia Cohen said, to cheers from the crowd gathered.

Supervisors said they wouldn't let hateful commentary undermine a long-standing policy that improves public safety and embraces immigrants.

"There are many jurisdictions in this state, and in this country, that are looking to what San Francisco does," said Supervisor David Campos, who co-sponsored the nonbinding resolution.

Roy Beck, director of NumbersUSA, which calls for limiting immigration, said it's frightening that supervisors are siding with immigrants who are in the country illegally – even violent ones – rather than public safety.

San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, passing an ordinance that bans city officials from enforcing immigration laws or asking about immigration status unless required by law or court order. A follow-up ordinance in 2013 allows detention only under a court order targeting violent felons.

San Francisco and other cities and counties have routinely ignored requests from ICE to keep people in custody. The jurisdictions say they can't hold arrestees beyond their scheduled release dates without probable cause.

However, more than half of the roughly 340 jurisdictions that previously declined to cooperate with ICE are now doing so in some form, as long as they don't have to keep immigrants in custody.

The shift came after outreach by federal immigration officials and several high-profile cases, including the one in San Francisco.

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said on Tuesday through a spokeswoman that the unanimous vote validates his policy.

Supervisors on Tuesday also voted to table another resolution urging the sheriff to revoke a department-wide memo prohibiting communication between his staff and federal immigration authorities, saying that it would send the wrong message to people living in the city illegally.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.