Denny's Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day Tuesday
Sarah Palin Calls Global Warming Studies 'Snake Oil' at NorCal Conference
Marina Yoga Studio Donates Old Mats for Haitian Relief
Prop 8 Trial Judge Is Gay; Should This Matter?
Muni Bus Nails a Fire Hydrant
Supervisor David Campos speaks to the media after a during a board of supervisors meeting at San Francisco City Hall on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
Our local sanctuary city drama continues as Mayor Newsom went ahead yesterday with his threat to veto legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors amending a local ordinance that governs when city employees can report young illegal immigrant hooligans to the Feds. Currently, the city's ordinance requires city employees to report illegals to the Feds upon arrest. New Supervisor David Campos, the author of the vetoed legislation and reportedly a former illegal himself, hoped to change all that by not allowing anyone to report the accused until he or she was actually convicted of a crime.
In vetoing the ordinance, Newsom reportedly had this to say:
"The sanctuary ordinance as originally conceived and adopted was designed to protect those residents of our city who are law-abiding. It was never meant to serve as a shield for people accused of committing serious crimes."
Ah. So let's get this straight - any illegal who has been arrested is automatically considered not to be law-abiding and is therefore a criminal worthy of immediate removal from the country? Ain't that putting the cart before the horse there, Gavin? What about that messy thing called due process? You know, the whole not being deprived of life, liberty or property without notice, a hearing, and an impartial judge that sort of forms one of the very basic tenets of like 1,000 years of Anglo-American legal tradition? Is this the kind of legal reasoning we can expect from a Newsom administration in Sacramento? If so, someone should put Jello Biafra on notice. He might have another song to write.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
One could get all mean and technical and say that illegal immigrants, by definition, are subject to deportation -- the only due process and hearing they're entitled to legally relates to their immigration status.
Although it's been a while since I graduated from law school, I'm fairly confident that you're wrong. All people inside the United States, whether documented or not, are entitled to due process, certainly more than what you're suggesting. Sorry for you, ben.
Someone who is in the country illegally is entitled to due process: a deportation hearing. Technically, a "Removal Proceeding" conducted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
An illegal immigrant does not have to be convicted of a crime to be deported.
So, yes, in a nutshell, "any illegal who has been arrested is automatically considered not to be law-abiding". You can even strike the "who has been arrested".
"Sorry for you", as you so charmingly put it, because your law school education has not stood you in good stead.
Uh, no. First of all, simply being in the US without papers is not illegal. It's the act of crossing the border without documentation that's illegal. Aliens in the country, whether here with documentation or without, are entitled to the same due process rights that citizens are. While I'll freely admit that immigration law was not my area of interest in law school, it's pretty clear I know more about the topic than you do. All the same, ben, thanks for sharing.
So let me get this straight. Let's say you're here illegally (i.e., you snuck across the border and have no documentation). Is it your position that ICE can't detain you and place you into removal proceedings unless you're either caught at the border or you're convicted of some additional crime? I haven't done the research yet, but I'm not sure that's the case.
How about you're both right and wrong. Chris is right - it's the act of crossing the border without authorization which is usually the issue. (See 8 USC 1325). However, once you have done this, remaining in the U.S. confers a status of being immediately deportable unless you plead some sort of bar once you're apprehended (e.g., asylum) (See 8 USC 1227.)
And Ben is right. You do get due process. I have represented illegal aliens in removal proceedings. You do get due process, especially if you are claiming asylum or some other bar against removal. So you need to distinguish between the due process for the crime for which you've been arrested (which may never happen if the alien is deported first) and the crime of being inside the U.S. illegally.
All in all, I find it remarkable that this debate is being carried out without any reference to the Ramos case. Wherever you think the balance comes out, that Supervisor Campos is consistently interviewed and not asked about whether this could lead to similar cases going forward is amazing to me.
I think what both of you are confusing de facto vs. de jure due process, and conflating what is the law, and what should be the law.
Just because a deportation hearing exists doesn't necessarily mean it's due process. A hearing can be conducted in such a manner so as to deprive such due process.
Second, when there are perceived deficiencies in due process, the legislature can create procedural safeguards, such as what was attempted here. Of course, it's undisputed that the federal jurisdiction would trump in a court of law, but I think such legislation is nonetheless very symbolic. As a municipality of a sovereign State, people are voicing their opinion to the Union that due process does not exist in these situations, even if a deportation hearing does.
Chris, "uh, no" to borrow another of your delightful mannerisms. The fact is that an *illegal* immigrant is by definition someone who is here *illegally*, and such people are entitled to Due Process -- in the form of a Removal Hearing. You do *not* have to be convicted of a crime to be deported.
You are correct in saying that an illegal immigrant is entitled to the same Due Process in *criminal matters* as a citizen and that an illegal immigrant must be charged and convicted before being deprived of life, liberty, etc.
To put this on the other foot -- how do you believe, under US law, an illegal immigrant can be deported? Do you believe that an illegal immigrant must be convicted of a crime before being deported? Is that your assertion?
So you're saying there's a legal definition of "illegal immigrant?" Please do cite, lest your "by definition" statement appear groundless.
Yes. An illegal immigrant is someone who is guilty of either (a) illegal entry, (b) visa overstay, or (c) visa fraud. Someone who does any of those things is subject to deportation. They are entitled to a deportation hearing, known technically as a "Removal Proceeding" before being deported. This is due process.
An illegal immigrant does *not* have to be convicted of a crime to be deported. An illegal immigrant charged with a crime *does* have to be convicted of a crime in the same manner as a citizen before being sentenced for that crime. This, again, is due process.
You may wish it were otherwise, and think it should be otherwise. But the facts are as they are.
right, so maybe you should call them "undocumented" as many others do, since by your definition, "illegal immigrant" requires conviction ("guilty of") one violating one of the laws you stated.
and in an attempt to untangle the thread so far, i think it's likely that due process would operate in some way with regard to any crimes committed while undocumented. the order in which these would be prosecuted is beyond me, but it appears you're arguing that being convicted under one of the immigration laws would trump other prosecutions.
It's not *my* definition, it's not *my* fault. I'm just saying the way it is. A removal proceeding ("deportation hearing") determines whether someone is in the country legally or not; if not, then that person can be deported. A removal proceeding is not a criminal trial; it is a nonjudicial administrative proceeding.
A *crime* committed by an illegal immigrant is tried in the normal way.
you're trying to refer to someone who has not yet been convicted of violating an immigration law (and thus be subject to due process in deportation proceedings) should be referred to as an "illegal immigrant." you're trying to have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have it any way. I'm just telling you what the law is and how the process works. The facts are as I have stated, and not as you would wish them to be.
It's amazing that you were presented with a factual, reasoned explanation of how a deportation hearing is not a criminal trial, but you persist in describing the issue as people being "convicted of the crime of illegal immigration". All I can do is explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.
You know what? It doesn't matter. You said, "An illegal immigrant does not have to be convicted of a crime to be deported." ...which nobody asserted but you. So good trolling for you. Have a nice Halloween.
At least Newsom had enough cells rubbing together up there to call them residents, unlike the SFist writer who wrote "law-abiding citizens."
Immigrants/Permanent Residents, regardless of how they got here, aren't citizens; they are, well, immigrants/permanent residents. While this sounds callous or anal, anyone who has investigated moving abroad knows that there's an difference.
Now for the part that is callous or anal: IMO, calling illegal immigrants "law-abiding" is a bit of a head-scratcher itself. It's clear that some simply believe in unrestricted open borders and free movement of labour. Others, I'm not sure what position they're arguing from.
embarrassing post.
or maybe this is satire?
superfluous comment
I am generally law abiding. I have never been arrested.
If I was here illegally, I would be SUPER law abiding and try really hard to not get arrested.
If you get arrested and you are here illegally, I think it's safe to say you're doing it wrong. And I don't see anything wrong with reporting them.
Obeying laws doesn't necessarily prevent you from being arrested, so there's that flaw in your logic.
I think it's safe to say it usually does. We don't live in a police state yet where walking down the street, minding your business, gets you cuffed.
It happens all the time, especially if you're black or Latino.
Under Newsom's policy, here is what has regularly happens: Police can stop a youth for any reason whatsoever and question them and search them illegally. The fact that the police broke the law doesn't matter once these kids are turned over to ICE. The illegal interrogations and searches have no effect on ICE proceedings, and the police face no disciplinary consequences for their actions. It's a license to harass minority youth. Many of these kids have lived in the United States for most of their lives and have no real connection to their native country.
I think that's pretty much right, thetens, but I don't know how this veto changes anything. Police already have everything they need to harass minority youth, and they typically do. The only real consequence for violating someone's 4th Amendment rights is the exclusion of evidence, which doesn't matter if you're not charging him with a crime in the end. That the cops might occasionally pick up an illegal and ship him out is just icing on the cake for them.
"Police already have everything they need to harass minority youth, and they typically do."
Fixed that for you. Nothing new there. It will continue until youths stand up, get the officer's contact info, and file complaints. Unfortunately, that day might be a long time off.
It helps the "minority" had a strikethrough.
There are a lot of things wrong with this post, but chief among them is the use of the terms "illegals" and "illegal immigrants" - those are very charged words which do little other than stir up irrational responses. A better term to use might be something like "undocumented immigrants" which does a better job of recognizing the humanity of folks who are going to be affected by these policies.
What is charged about the term "illegal immigrants"? We are talking about people who immigrated illegally. It is a perfect apt description. It is only the PC police who use the euphemism "undocumented" to distract from the fact that these people have broken the law. I don't think either term reflects on the "humanity" of the people.
but... but... people who feel Ways about Things might get sad if you use the correct term. :(
this was the right call. way to go gavin! a victory for common sense in an otherwise absurb world we live in.
as for cops stopping people to ask them what they are doing on the street at 4 am or at 10 am if they should be in school, i am all for that too.
in fact, that might be the only way to turn places like richmond around.
This just smacks of xenophobia and it's silly. There is no evidence that illegal immigrants are a greater danger to society than anyone else. In fact, they work extremely hard doing jobs no one else wants, and they pay taxes (via fake SSNs) but receive no benefits. Their only crime is coming here without documentation, and frankly, we need them for our economy to survive.
Wanna talk about a public nuisance? How about the crackheads around 6th and Market who are just waiting to spazz out and have a PTSD episode on you. Are they somehow "better" because they are American citizens? Why don't we clean up a real public danger and leave these people alone.
i think you misunderstood my post matt. i was happy to see gavin make a stand on the sanctuary lunacy. others have said it better than i, if you are here illegally, you better not commit a crime. that is insult to injury.
as for stopping people at 4 am or 10 am that should be in school, i did not mean anyone of color. i mean anyone, or people, as i stated.
what does everyone think of the dmv fiasco?
i actually think we should let illegals get licenses to drive cars and we should force them to insure and register them before they drive.
otherwise all semblance of law and government can break down.
we need that money and liability to ensure we can fix roads, police them, etc.
that trumps my concern for legal status as a citizen. the government has got to get paid!
When the original ordinance was passed in 1989 the point was simply to ensure you didn't create a caste system - one which can freely go to the police if they are vicitms of a crime or go to a hospital if injured. The point made over and over again back then was that this would ensure that you wouldn't have a group of people that could be preyed on by criminals, who would know that they couldn't get caught because those without papers could not go to the police without fear of deportation.
To see it twisted now so that we're going to war, and using City resources to help people who are actively engaged in crime is really disappointing. Meanwhile, those who may be here illegally but are simply working and making a living, get no help at all from this latest stunt.
I don't undertand what makes it "progressive" to consistently stand up for people who want to hurt others and steal, and to not stand up for the people who are playing by (most of , if not all) the rules.
This isn't standing up for people who commit crimes. Again, they would still be deported if convicted. The point is that if the police can simply accuse you of a crime and that is all it takes to deport you, then citizens of the immigrant community will stop calling the police when there is trouble. Criminals and gangs use this to scare the immigrant community and manipulate them to coming under their control.
The extra element in this case is the juvenile aspect. Juveniles in California are not convicted of crimes, with a few exceptions like murder. Instead, juveniles are found to be delinquent and they are rehabilitated through probation. This is an important part of our legal system, because many juveniles commit crimes and do not comprehend the responsibility of being a member of our society and the role of the justice system. If you are a juvenile without status and you commit a misdemeanor, and are found to be delinquent, why does it follow that you should be deported to a country you didn't grow up in while your family stays here? It is our society that shapes and molds the youth. If juveniles commit crimes, it is because we have not done a good job of molding the youth. If the crime is severe, like murder, then of course the juvenile isn't treated as a juvenile, and if the conviction comes down, they get deported anyways. As illustrated by my points, this has a lot to do with equal protection under the laws. You don't want to create a subservient class of undocumented people who don't trust government institutions.
In any case, the Campos ordinance seems to report juveniles who are found delinquent, so to me, it doesn't even go far enough.
The
title should say "Newsom takes a shit on Youth Rights, and wipes his
ass using Campos gotee!" Innocent until proven guilty is what the LAW
states for anyone who is arrested......Supervisor Campos has fought for the RIGHTS of ALL people; gay, strait, undocumented, disabled. Now, it seams the Mayor wants to ge...t rid of ALL undocumented youth. Mr. Newsom, YOUR grandparents were undocumented when they came to this Conrty
Innocent until proven guilty is correct. If someone is proven guilty of being in this country illegally then they can be deported. No other crime is required.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 100-mile rule (granted, it does not apply to San Francisco). ICE has the authority to ask anyone within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border for proof of citizenship. If you cannot provide it, they can deport you to Mexico without due process--that is, without a hearing. They pick you up, take your fingerprints, and dump you on the other side of the border. You can cry all you want that you are an American citizen, they won't listen. This is why hardly any Mexican-Americans live in San Diego. Way too often do ICE agents deport bona fide American citizens to Mexico. This begs the question of racist enforcement of laws. If you are not brown and you live in San Diego, see how frequently you get stopped for papers. And yet the second largest undocumented group in the US is the Irish. Go figure.
Don't tell me about due process until you've done your homework. Go do some research on the immigration courts and get back to me.
what? the irish? i'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. perhaps you need to do a bit more homework yourself. either that or come to the realization that we aren't living in the 19th century.
http://www.urban.org/publications/1000587.html
the second largest 'group' of undocumented immigrants come from asia. not europe, and certainly not freaking ireland.
also, is there a reason you limit your entire argument here to mexican immigrants? clearly a number of undocumented hispanic immigrants arrive from all over latin america. though they may arrive via mexico, i'm pretty sure a honduran or nicaraguan immigrant isn't being deported to mexico.
Actually they are being deported to Mexico. When the regulation came out in 2004, ICE said it was just going to use it to deport non-Mexicans BACK ACROSS THE BORDER TO MEXICO, but as we know, the only thing ICE could use to figure out where someone was from was by judging the color of their skin. So inevitably, even Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were deported to Mexico.
Ahh yes, after amnesty in the early 80's, many of the undocumented Irish became permanant residents and citizens. They still came here illegally though. There are still about 50,000 FULLY illegal ones here right now. Anyways, your stats point to regions, not countries of origin. The stats would look a bit different in any case if you forget about amnesty.
Sorry but all your ranting just misses the point. There is no "violation of due process" to deport someone who hasn't been convicted of crime. Why? Because if you are here illegally you can be deported (and rightly so) for that reason alone -- there is no need for a conviction of some other crime.
So maybe you should read and understand my post before getting all pissy in response to it.
If you believe that the current immigration laws or the enforcement of them is racist, then work to change those things. But to claim that enforcement of existing laws is somehow violates "due process" is non-sensical.
I actually favor changing immigration laws to allow greater legal immigration, but illogical rants like yours with their unsupported accusations of racism makes it clear why it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion of these matters.
Exciting difference between the URL and the title.
@Chris: Snarkiness is fine, but it does not substitute for knowing the law. A person who enters the U.S. illegally commits a crime both by crossing the border and remaining in the U.S.
That being said, a purported illegal immigrant does have due process rights. If they are going to be tried for a crime, then they have due process rights with respect to the trial. If they are going to be deported, they have due process rights with respect to the deportation hearing.
What is bizarre is the contention that somehow a person's due process rights are being violated if they are reported to the feds without having been convicted of a crime. If someone is in the U.S. illegally they can be deported (with due process) whether or not they have been convicted of anything.
Really this entire sanctuary city thing is bizarre and just reeks of political correctness.
Actually when you cross the border "illegally" you are not committing a crime but rather a civil infraction, like speeding or parking illegally. It can also be a crime if border patrol stopped you from entering the country illegally and you try again. But in general it only becomes a crime if you've been illegally present in the US for something like 10 years. That means that only about 50% of undocumented immigrants are actually committing crimes. But let's be honest with ourselves. We all commit crimes. You may think that you haven't, but you do. When you print stuff out at work that has nothing to do with work, you are committing a crime. Yes, a misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. The fact is that there are so many crimes on the books that the DA can prosecute anyone for anything. This is a product of too much citizen involvement in the lawmaking process--because citizens forget that DA's already have the power to put people away with the laws already on the books. Now then, the DA gets to decide which laws are enforced, because if we can be arrested for anything, there has to be some order in society, otherwise we would all be criminals. Deciding whether to turn undocumented people over to ICE is also a policy decision which operates on what kind of society you want. One where people who are part of our community will be uprooted for doing something that is not morally wrong, or one where we respect our communities and work with them to go after crime that IS morally reprehensible.
In the specific case of juveniles, we have to consider the special rights afforded to juveniles under California law. We are one of the few states that respect juvenile rights. If you are arrested for a crime as a juvenile, that information does not get relayes to the feds. If it were, as is the case with adult offenders, it NEVER leaves your record. It CANNOT be expunged from the FBI's records, and that can have far reaching effects, like when we share our criminal database with other countries like Canada and soon England too. But since we are a society that respects the rights of juveniles, we don't do this. Note: other states trample all over the rights of juveniles. we are the exception, and thankfully so. So now you have to ask yourself, if we don't hand over arrest or court records to the feds with juveniles, why should that be different for undocumented juvenile offenders?
But if you want to talk about due process, don't look at the Immigration court. It isn't even part of the judiciary and the "judges" are notorious for not giving a shit about rights. They are political appointees who have little regard for judicial ethics. The BIA, the appeals board under the Department of Justice is even worse. The only due process you get is if you finally appeal to the 9th circuit, but then they have limited review power and can do very little to influence most cases. So although most of you would like to delude yourself to believe undocumented immigrants get their day in court, guess again. You would be hardpressed to represent yourself even as an English speaking citizen in immigration court.
The sanctuary city laws aren't about "political correctness," they're about breaking the influence that criminal gangs have over immigrant communities. They're about making it reasonable for illegal immigrants to cooperate with the police in identifying, tracking down, and deporting the kinds of criminals who really make our society unsafe.
There's no reason for an illegal immigrant to report a crime or cooperate with the city police if these laws are not in place.
I agree -that was the point. Unfortunately nowadays it no longer is. There is also a public health aspect - you don't want people contracting the flu and not getting treatment and then spreading it, you want them to come forward.
Unfortunately, once again, we just wanna stick up for the people who decide it's a great idea to stab, shoot, and steal. I'm not sure why that's a good thing.
It's all an interesting philosophical debate until you get robbed, run over, or murdered by an illegal immigrant that the City of San Francisco has given sanctuary...
No it isn't just a philosophical debate. These people are part of our society and are subject to our criminal laws just like you and me. Sanctuary does not give anyone the pretext to commit crimes. If someone committed a crime against me, whether they are here with or without status, I would want the criminal justice system to deal with them. And it does. You need to ask yourself why having crossed the border legally or not makes any difference. If you grow up in San Francisco and were brought here as a child, you are shaped by the society you are in, not the one you came from. So the responsible societal answer should not be to deport someone who grew up here and is part of our society if they commit a crime. It is to subject them to the same laws we are subject to. And anyway, the sanctuary policy articulaed by campos WOULD reveal those kids identities to ICE after they have been convicted.
The bottom line is clear. If you can go around accusing people of committing crimes and that is all that is necessary to get someone deported (i.e. no conviction required), you have a serious problem with getting anyone to report crimes to the police. Would you report your brother who you knew committed a crime knowing that it would get him deported? Eventually you end up in a situation where criminals and gangs gain the upper hand because they can use personal relationships against undocumented immigrants to prevent them from reporting crimes at all.
"If you can go around accusing people of committing crimes and that is all that is necessary to get someone deported (i.e. no conviction required), you have a serious problem with getting anyone to report crimes to the police"
I think this needs to be repeated and re-repeated.
Sanctuary city laws weren't written to protect illegal immigrants from ICE. They exist to protect all of us from criminal activity.
I'd like to serve carnitas from Lou Dobbs' ass crack..
when they came for the food vendors...
they are deporting the amuse bouche guy back to france today!
his crime? trying to make your mouth happy.
I hope you xenophobes are happy!
I considered what I could add to this steaming pile and the only thing I could think of is that if you dragged a net through the Mission and removed everyone who is here illegally, the place would be a ghost town in two weeks and speaking Chinese in three.
your post is the best because I'm like that too!
when i close my eyes and picture an american they are always white!
brown people are always the other! always.. no way were they born here. couldn't happen. not possible. there are no multi-generational san francisco families comprised of non whites. its impossible.
Your argument is invalid because:
a. My grandparents were immigrants and came here legally via Ellis Island. (I'm 2nd generation American)
b. My girls family is from Central America and her parents came here legally. oooh, scary dark people! - (She is 1st generation American)
c. If the place these illegal immigrants left was so bad and America is such a great place to be, why not become part of it and stop operating outside of the law?
d. It is rude and arrogant to think that an entire country needs to learn your language because you refuse to learn the most frequently spoken language in that country.
e. I get pulled over driving an unregistered car without a license and they run an NCIC on me to see if I am who I say I am, if there are outstanding warrants for my arrest, hand me a summons to appear in court and tow my vehicle. Illegal immigrants get to call a friend for a ride home - driving the unregistered and assumedly uninsured vehicle as well.
I am calling bullshit on Newsom, the Board and anyone who thinks this is reasonable.
Enough already with the coddling and politically correct bullshit.
so we agree then, that the mission wouldn't be a ghost town after you dragged a net through it trolling for illegals?
good.
Your argument(s) is weak, what part of ILLEGAL don't you kooks not understand, what a mess SF is and I'd blame idiots like Stupidvisor David Campos
Deport them before wasting my tax dollars on due process in my courts. Jesus. We're broke enough from this stupid forced composting bullshit. I don't need to finance "for fun" investigations and hearings for someone who shouldn't fucking be here anyway.
This is just nonsense. What street thug wouldn't prefer getting sent back to the old country on the US taxpayer's time as opposed to doing time in the California prison system?
I say take a poll of street thugs and do what they say.
~~~Rights and Responsibilities of U.S. Citizenship~~~
Becoming a U.S. citizen provides you with new rights and privileges. Citizenship also brings with it important responsibilities. For a list of these rights and responsibilities, please see below:
Rights of U.S. citizens
* Vote in federal elections
* Serve on a jury
* Bring family members to the United States
* Obtain citizenship for children born abroad
* Travel with a U.S. passport
* Run for federal office
* Become eligible for federal grants and scholarships
Responsibilities of U.S. citizens
* Support and defend the Constitution
* Serve the country when required
* Participate in the democratic process
* Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws
* Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others
* Participate in your local community
Let's repeat that one point for the dimwitted and lawyers among us:
RESPECT AND OBEY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.
Not sure why that came out "in reply to". I didn't have the box checked. Although I did have it checked earlier, because the connection between illegal immigrants and forced composting was worth commenting on.
The problem is with Newsom saying "It was never meant to serve as a shield for people accused of committing serious crimes." People who have been accused of committing serious crimes are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. (I learned this a long time ago, had it confirmed in law school, and was reminded of it forcefully just this morning by Judge Lillian Sing while I was escaping being empanelled.)
Here, someone who hasn't committed a serious crime—who is, by definition, still presumed to be law-abiding—is being turned over to ICE just because the cops got a chance to check them out using methods they wouldn't normally have access to but can employ because they're under arrest. Sounds like just the kind of thing the sanctuary law was put in place to prevent.
Actually, the sanctuary law was put in place in the 80's to prevent people from being deported to Central America when it was feared they would face repression because of their political beliefs. It was always a bit unclear how many people were truly political refuges and how many were truly political refuges, but it doesn't really matter. Now the basis of the sanctuary policy is... well it really isn't clear why we have the policy other than that it Campos and other claim it would be "racist" to repeal it.
OK, fair enough. Many laws are on the books that may have been passed in different political climates that have acquired new reasons for being retained. If the sanctuary law wasn't put into place originally to protect people who help law enforcement with gang activity, that's certainly the reason for Newsom and others in this thread are citing for keeping it now. It gives them a conveniently "law-and-order" reason to do what is a actually a politically popular thing among those of us who think immigration law and the way it's enforced is often racist.
But it doesn't matter. Chris's point about the wrongness of Newsom's statement, and the assumptions that lay behind it, stands.
Wow...I thought LA had its head up its ass the way it coddles illegals. Then I see this post with the Opposite Day-like headline crucifying Newsom for taking a dump on the non-existant rights of ILLEGALS. Wow. As bad as it is here in LA, thank God I don't live in a bullshit "sanctuary city." You know who also doesn't live in a sanctuary city? The Bologna family. They used to, but then they were murdered by a young illegal. Let's see that jackass Chris Jones spin that into a positive! Go ahead, Jones, you sick bastard.