S
AN FRANCISCO, CA --- Imagine this scene. A man walks up to a street cop, and asks “If I rob that bank across street, but promise to give the cash to the poor, will you arrest me. I need to know before I commit the robbery.”
What is the only answer the cop can give. “Of course, I’ll arrest you.”
That is in effect what United States Attorney Joseph Russoniello conveyed to San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera in a official letter dated December 3, 2009.
“It probably will come as no surprise to you that I have no authority...to grant amnesty from federal prosecution to anyone who follows the referenced ordinance.”
The referenced ordinance, enacted on November 10, 2009 by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, requires San Francisco law enforcement officers to report information regarding the immigration status of a juvenile arrested for certain felonies only after judicial proceedings have been completed.
Like the attorney for the would-be bank robber above, City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked in a letter to Russoniello the same day the ordinance was enacted, for assurance "that if the City proceeds to implement this Amendment...City law enforcement officers and employees will not be prosecuted for violating federal criminal laws.”
What is remarkable about this very predictable interchange between the U.S. Attorney and the City Attorney is acknowledgment by the City Attorney that Federal regulations and laws are pertinent in San Francisco. Maybe not at the Board of Supervisors, but for the Board’s effective attorney, he knows and respects Federal statutes.
So we’re going to have a showdown.
The City Attorney is required to inform the Board about the consequences of their politically-motivated actions, however compassionate their reasoning. The Board can now face the same reality the City Attorney faced when he requested his assurance from the U.S. Attorney.
By their actions, the Board has finally met stark reality and it’s called the Law.
Should one San Francisco law enforcement officer be arraigned for violating Federal immigration statutes, the U.S. Attorney should be obligated to arrest each member who voted for the amendment.
Comments
It is tough to defend any illegal immigrant let alone one who committed a felony or a violent crime but again he's entitled to his "innocent until proven otherwise". I am OK with that as long as the juvenile stays locked up until his judicial proceedings have been completed.
If this were only true. San Francisco is above the Law. Just ask our elected officals.
Nobody is being denied the presumption of innocence by being reported to the ICE. If reporting an illegal alien at the time of arrest rather than conviction did amount to a denial of process, then why did the Board of Supervisors decide that it was OK for adult illegal aliens to be reported to the ICE upon arrest?
Ahh...in order of priority...lets see. Chris "I-80" Daly; Compost; Murky; and those other super er stupervisors....
san francisco is now the dumbest city in the world. it shouldn't have any sanctuary laws in their books. I hope all you city officials suffer the fate of some criminal busting into your homes and bring on the worst of violations, and then tell me about sancutary laws harboring thugs from another country.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!