Supes May Oppose U.S. Immigration Program

Read Mission Local often?

Help grow our newsroom, joining the 3,250 readers who support us by giving below.

Donate today!

It wasn’t the first time her partner hit her, but in October 2010 Norma finally picked up the phone and dialed 911. Instead of getting the help she longed for, the undocumented San Francisco resident was taken into custody and detained under the federal government’s Secure Communities Program.

“I don’t know if you have family or you have children or if you ever stopped to think about what it would be like if you weren’t able to go home to your children,” Norma told members of the Board of Supervisors at a Public Safety Committee meeting on Thursday.

Norma, who spoke in Spanish, was one of more than 30 San Francisco residents who came out to speak on behalf of a resolution initiated by District 1 Supervisor Eric Mar. The resolution would discourage the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and Juvenile Probation Department from using local funds to respond to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers — documents requesting that local law enforcement officials detain an individual so that ICE may seek custody.

The Public Safety Committee unanimously approved the resolution, which will be heard by the full Board of Supervisors for a final decision on Tuesday, Dec. 13. Five supervisors have signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution, but advocates point out that it has very little muscle.

Under the 2008 Secure Communities Program, federal immigration officials rely on cities to uphold their requests to fingerprint and then detain immigrants who are undocumented. The program’s stated goal is to identify and deport illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes.

But cities have become frustrated with the program because the deportations have gone far beyond serious criminals. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency’s website shows that of 104,464 illegal immigrants deported under Secure Communities since its inception in 2008, 73 percent have been arrested on misdemeanors or lesser crimes or have not been convicted of a crime at all.

“Programs like S-Comm make neighborhoods less safe because they keep people from interacting with the police,” said District 9 Supervisor David Campos, who is co-sponsoring the resolution. “If you live in the Mission and you have been [the] victim of a crime and you have an undocumented witness, you want them to come forward and tell police what they saw.”

As a resolution, the policy would not be legally binding, and it is questionable whether it would have much impact.

But if it passes, the resolution will be met with support from the Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff Michael Hennessey has already come out strongly against Secure Communities, as has District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who was recently elected to replace Hennessey as sheriff. The Juvenile Probation Department has not taken a stance on Secure Communities in the past.

“I do hope that at some point in the future this becomes an ordinance,” Renee Saucedo of La Raza Centro Legal said at the meeting. “We want to see a policy that is binding once it becomes politically feasible.”

The Immigrants Rights Defense Committee approached Supervisor Mar with the idea for the resolution, understanding that a resolution rather than an ordinance would be easier to pass, said Lorena Melgarejo, director of civic engagement at CARECEN in the Mission District.

“This is a step in the right direction, something we can win to start building a foundation,” said Melgarejo, adding that the committee felt that losing the battle for an ordinance would have been a step backward for immigrant rights.

San Francisco has no obligation to comply with Secure Communities. As the Code of Federal Regulations explains, ICE detainers are only requests from the federal government, not legal requirements.

San Francisco has voluntarily complied with Secure Communities in the past, but as of June the Sheriff’s Department, at least, began to release low-level undocumented criminals from jail even if federal officials requested they be detained.

However, the Juvenile Probation Department has been more conservative regarding immigrants’ rights.

“It would make sense for JPD to be more protective of juveniles, but unfortunately they have not been,” said Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus, a major proponent of the resolution.

In 2009 the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance led by Campos calling on law enforcement to turn undocumented juveniles over to ICE only after a judge had upheld a felony charge. It was never fully implemented, and under the instructions of Mayor Ed Lee, juvenile probation still reports unaccompanied minors to ICE upon arrest.

While the current resolution does not address Campos’s ordinance, it does say that San Francisco shouldn’t be using city money or staff to do the job of immigration officials.

Campos said he sees the two issues as related, and is unhappy that his 2009 ordinance has yet to be fully implemented. But he also stressed that Secure Communities, which includes adults and juveniles, is a separate issue that needs to be addressed with its own resolution.

Given the refusal of Lee and his predecessor, Gavin Newsom, to implement Campos’s 2009 ordinance, the District 9 supervisor said it is particularly important that the Board offer a clear stance on Secure Communities. Doing so, he said, would help to limit the possibility of future attempts to undermine the city’s opposition to the federal program.

Santa Clara and other counties have implemented similar measures.

“This resolution is consistent with San Francisco’s status as a sanctuary city,” Campos said. “This resolution will put the Board on record saying we should not comply with ICE holds unless there is actually reimbursement to the city.”