« | »

San Francisco’s 1989 Sanctuary Ordinance

From San Francisco’s 1989 Sanctuary Ordinance:

San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12H: Immigration Status

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.

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.

In other words, San Francisco forbids its police and other employees from cooperating with any the federal government immigration enforcement. Indeed, police officers and other city employees are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status.

In addition, the city declared that it will not direct municipal funds or employees towards assisting federal immigration enforcement, unless such assistance is required by federal or state law or a warrant. (A requirement that will never come.)

To be fair, however, it should be noted that this ordinance suggests San Francisco might be willing to cooperate with immigration enforcement in the case of convicted or accused felons:

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…

But they add this very important codicil:

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

In other words, even if they have a felon, they cannot report him to the INS (now ICE) simply because he does not speak English or appears to be from another country. That would be discrimination. Which means, in the final analysis, they will not even report convicted felons to the federal immigration authorities.

With this ordinance San Francisco publically declared its refusal to ever cooperate with the federal government in enforcing any of our nation’s immigration laws.

Of course, the new Arizona immigration law took the diametrically opposite approach. It actually requires its local police to help the federal government enforce our laws. But look at who got sued by Mr. Obama’s Department Of Justice.

Indeed, Arizona was specifically chastised by the Justice Department and the Clinton-appointed judge for ‘interfering’ with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws. Meanwhile, 21 years later, San Francisco’s ordinance has yet to be challenged by the federal government

In effect, Ms. Bolton’s ruling yesterday turned Arizona into a ‘sanctuary’ state. Which, of course, was exactly what Mr. Obama, the ACLU and La Raza wanted. In fact, it is exactly what they want for the whole nation.

This ruling puts us another one step closer to amnesty and a permanently open border between the US and the prospective Democrat voters of Mexico.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “San Francisco’s 1989 Sanctuary Ordinance”

  1. Right of the People says:

    So, the DOJ is going to file a lawsuit against San Francisco and their unconstitutional ordinance?

    (Silence, sounds of crickets in the background)

    Funny, I don’t hear any outrage from members of congress and the Oblah-blah administration about this obviously illegal bit of legislation. Unlike the law in Arizona this piece of donkey dung goes directly against federal laws. Soros and his minions must be so proud.

  2. Georgfelis says:

    I’m not sure this is as dire as you are making it out to be. Or as victorious as the Left is making it out to be.

    As far as I understand, if the Police “stop” an illegal alien under these new 1070 changes, they are still required to produce ID just like the rest of us. Leading to one of the following scenarios:

    Obviously Fake ID: No change from 1070, there will be an arrest, a determination of their true identification, at which point the AZ police pack the miscreant over to ICE for (fill in Federal action here) with an AZ criminal charge still hanging over their head if they manage to slip free.
    Good Fake ID: 1070 would not help here either, only more strict examination of state drivers license records and cards can make a dent here and a complete rejection of the MC card as ID. Weak ID states such as Nebraska will be subject to “Gresham’s Law” of ID, Bad ID drives out Good. This leads to states being made a laughingstock on TV, which is good
    Legit ID from a foreign country (passport, etc): 1070 law would have affected this. The officer cannot ask “Is Bob from Germany here legally?”, they can only determine “This is Bob.”, despite the fact that Federal law requires legal aliens (such as tourists, green card holders, etc) to carry their proof of legal status with them at all times, and they can be forced to produce it to Federal law enforcement officials under penalty of law. (http://tinyurl.com/239hev6)

    Matricula Consular card: 1070 would have helped here. Right now you can get a MC card for about $30 in most major cities. If this is the best ID someone can produce, the odds are extremely high that they are not here legally.

    • Right of the People says:

      Georgfelis,

      Excuse me if I’m wrong here but the article is about San Francisco and their ordinance with prohibits their law enforcement agencies to interact with the feds not about the law in Arizona.

      There is nothing wrong with the law in Arizona, only the asswipe in the Oval Office thinks so because his handlers (Soros, Wright, Emanuel) told his so.

      If our Secretary of Homeland Security would get the thumb out and let us actually enforce the laws as they are written and the darned immigration judges would actually put felons in jail instead of releasing them to VR (voluntary return) back to their homeland which they hardly ever do then we could get a handle on this problem. If we could do all this than there wouldn’t be a need for laws like the one in Arizona.

      Cold hard facts are this, if you do catch a wet, odds are they will be back on OUR streets in less than 12 hours because they will be released by the immigration judge on their own recognizance and given a court date which they never, ever show for. Meantime they are free to roam our streets because they technically are here legally awaiting their court appearance and are not allowed to leave the country. Of course since they won’t show up for the court date so they can be deported they have ipso facto become a “legal” resident.

      Changes need to be made and soon or we are going to be up to our necks in these leeches.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »