Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member zeezil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    16,593

    California's sanctuary city no more

    California's sanctuary city no more
    San Francisco used to shield juvenile illegal immigrants -- even convicted criminals -- from deportation. It was right to stop the practice.
    July 12, 2008



    Is Los Angeles some kind of "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants? People on all sides of the debate like to think so. Those who want to protect the immigrants and their families use the term with a certain bravado, as if to stress that their city has adopted a firm and unique moral stance. Those who want the immigrants out use it too, but as an expression of derision for what they insist is the flouting of federal immigration law.

    There is no doubt that Los Angeles is a capital of illegal immigration, based on numbers alone. But a sanctuary city? L.A., take a seat. If you want to see what a real sanctuary city does, have a look at San Francisco.

    The cliche of the beautiful City by the Bay as a leftist outpost is tiresome, but sometimes the shoe fits. That became clear this month with revelations that public officials there actively assisted juvenile illegal immigrants in avoiding federal deportation, even though they were also charged with state crimes.

    What's the big deal about flying young Hondurans back to their home country? After all, it gets them out of town and beyond U.S. borders, which is where they legally belong. But it is, in fact, a big deal because it puts San Franciscans in the position of actively shielding offenders from federal authorities. The offenders avoid immigration proceedings, which means they could easily return and be subject only to a first-offense misdemeanor charge, rather than the felony of illegal reentry after deportation. Mayor Gavin Newsom was embarrassed by the reports and, appropriately, he put an end to the practice. The U.S. attorney's office is investigating.

    There is no comparison between San Francisco's practice and the Los Angeles Police Department's policy of not arresting suspects solely for immigration violations. The LAPD's Special Order 40 essentially calls on federal immigration authorities to do their work while the local police do theirs. There is no San Francisco-style sheltering or interference, and in fact the LAPD can hand over to the feds those booked for other crimes who, it turns out, are here illegally.

    The contrast between Special Order 40 and San Francisco's method of dealing with illegal immigrants won't make Los Angeles' sensible policy any more acceptable to its adamant and vocal critics. But they should note -- as should those on the other side of the debate who also like to call L.A. a sanctuary -- that all the two policies have in common is a misused name.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... 7489.story
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member cvangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,450
    LA can't use the SF fiasco as an excuse for their own complicity. This is a lame attempt on the part of the LA Times. Both cities need to rescind their ridiculous aiding and abetting of illegal aliens

  3. #3
    Senior Member zeezil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    16,593
    Quote Originally Posted by cvangel
    LA can't use the SF fiasco as an excuse for their own complicity. This is a lame attempt on the part of the LA Times. Both cities need to rescind their ridiculous aiding and abetting of illegal aliens
    Right on, I thought the same thing. LA Times is promoting LA's own sanctuary policy while (mildly) criticizing SF.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mexifornia
    Posts
    9,455
    Any city which adopts and adheres to any policy that protects those who have entered this country in violation of Federal immigration law must be construed as a "sanctuary city."

    Do not use wacked out San Francisco as the definition of a sanctuary city. A sanctuary policy can come in all shapes and forms and can be accomplished via many different means.

    That includes Los Angeles with it's Special Order 40 which prevents police from arresting individuals soley for being in this country illegally. That is the text book definition of a "sanctuary city" as it's providing individuals with legal protections from their actions of entering this country illegally.

    Los Angeles is a sanctuary city...
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member cvangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,450
    S.F. IDs 10 possible illegal youths to feds
    Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Saturday, July 12, 2008


    (07-11) 18:34 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco officials have given up the identities of 10 potential illegal immigrants housed at juvenile hall since Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that the city would stop shielding young drug offenders from federal deportation, officials said Friday.

    "I'm happy with the level of cooperation we are receiving from the Juvenile Probation Department," said Nancy Alcantar, supervisor of the local office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

    Alcantar said one of the 10 youths has been turned over to ICE as deportable, and the other nine remain at juvenile hall pending the outcome of their criminal cases.

    Two of the juveniles have already been deported once before, but made their way back into the United States, Alcantar said.

    William Siffermann, chief of juvenile probation in San Francisco, confirmed that city officials had referred the youths for consideration by ICE. Authorities said most of those in custody were being held for drug-related offenses.

    Alcantar said ICE detainers have been placed on all the youths. Under the detainers, the city is to notify ICE agents when a youth is scheduled to be released from local custody. Federal officials then have 48 hours to pick up the juvenile for deportation proceedings.

    The referrals to ICE came after years of efforts to shield juvenile drug dealers from deportation ended in national embarrassment for the city.

    San Francisco spent $285 a day housing the youths in juvenile hall. Eager to cut the population in the youth lockup, the city paid for free trips home for offenders rather than report them to federal officials. Unlike deportation, being flown out of the country by local authorities would not automatically bar a youth from returning.

    Federal officials stumbled onto the practice in December when they intercepted a flight in Houston and warned juvenile authorities it "may be illegal," Siffermann said.

    The city continued the flights anyway, halting only in May when federal officials opened an investigation into what they said were violations of U.S. law against aiding and abetting a border crossing.

    With the flights grounded, the city placed eight juvenile drug dealers in unlocked group homes in San Bernardino County. That effort backfired, however, when all eight walked away within three days of their arrival.

    After The Chronicle reported last week on what the city was doing, Newsom announced that the city would stop any effort to protect juvenile felons from deportation.

    The first six offenders in San Francisco custody were referred to ICE on Thursday, followed by four more Friday, federal officials said.

    Honoring ICE detainers for juvenile offenders marks another about-face for the city. San Francisco juvenile probation officials acknowledged that they had refused to honor such detainers in two recent cases, citing an opinion by the city attorney that complying with the immigration agency was voluntary.

    The two offenders were released before federal authorities showed up to take them in for deportation.

    Now, said Alcantar, "they are committed to honoring our detainers."

    Earlier this week, immigrant advocates told the city's Juvenile Probation Commission that the city should continue to protect the juveniles and said many were the victims of exploitation and abusive families. They also said many should be shielded from being turned over to federal authorities under privacy rights in state law.

    Joseph Russoniello, U.S. attorney in San Francisco, scoffed at the idea that state privacy provisions of juvenile law should stand in the way of deportations.

    "We are talking about separate arms of law enforcement," he said. "The (privacy) protection is so as to not to stigmatize a juvenile, not to protect them from law enforcement."

    E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.

    This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ewsbayarea

  6. #6
    Senior Member zeezil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    16,593
    San Francisco spent $285 a day housing the youths in juvenile hall.
    That comes out to $8550 per month and $104,000 per year!!!
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  8. #8
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,411
    So the LA Times is using SF's policies to try to make Lost Angeles look better.

    If it wasn't so sad it would be laughable.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mexifornia
    Posts
    2,174
    [b]
    The LAPD's Special Order 40 essentially calls on federal immigration authorities to do their work while the local police do theirs. There is no San Francisco-style sheltering or interference, and in fact the LAPD can hand over to the feds those booked for other crimes who, it turns out, are here illegally.


    Villaraigosa must have sent this piece of drivel to the LAT to be used for his campaign purposes when he runs against Newsom for Governor next year...in what will turn out to be the Battle of the Sanctuary Cities!

    Villaraigosa never met an IA gangbanger he didn't like!; he DOES NOT let ICE do it's job! He's a LIAR! When Ice raided and arrested over a hundred IA's a few weeks ago, Villaraigosa met with Chertoff and demanded that he STOP arresting IA's who were just trying to put food on their table...and to go after the IA gangbangers instead!

    Two years ago, when Alberto Gonzales was Atty. Gen., Villar personally called him and told him to get ICE out of L.A.! In fact he wanted Gonzales to FIRE the top ICE agent in LA, who had just ARRESTED ELVIRA! Funny thing is...it was Gonzalez who was fired (resigned) just a few weeks later! Villaraigosa was FURIOUS when they arrested Elvira in L.A.!!!


    BUT Villaraigosa and his sock puppet, Chief Bratton, have NEVER told LAPD to turn over IA criminals to ICE; in fact, it's quite the opposite...the cops have said they are NOT allowed to call ICE to pick up IA criminals.

    Bottom Line: If Villaraigosa was serious about ending illegal immigration, he would sign off on Special Order 40! He WILL NOT do it! He should be begging ICE to remove all the IA gangbangers in this city!!!

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bulldogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On Duty Alamo, California
    Posts
    2,141
    California's sanctuary city no more
    This is a very deceiving headline because SF still is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •