Thread: Critics of S.F. immigration policy win ruling

Critics of S.F. immigration policy win ruling
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, October 23, 2008

(10-22) 18:09 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A state appeals court reinstated a taxpayer lawsuit on Wednesday that accuses San Francisco officials of violating a state law that requires police who make drug arrests to notify federal authorities if a criminal suspect doesn't appear to be a U.S. citizen.

A Superior Court judge dismissed the suit last year, saying the California law on which it was based was an invalid attempt by the state to regulate immigration. The First District Court of Appeal disagreed Wednesday and said the law, though it might affect immigration, is based on the state's legal authority to combat drug trafficking.

The 3-0 ruling allows opponents of San Francisco's immigration policy to try to prove that the city has broken the state law. Passed in 1953, the law requires police to tell federal immigration officials whenever they arrest someone for any of 14 specified drug crimes and have reason to believe that the person "may not be a citizen of the United States." It applies not only to illegal immigrants but also to non-citizens who are legal residents and can be deported for committing serious crimes.

"This decision strikes at the heart of the sanctuary movement," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that joined the lawsuit after it was dismissed. The court did not look into the city's reporting practices, which will be considered later in the case, but Fitton said he has "little doubt that San Francisco is in noncompliance with the law."

Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the ruling "has no bearing on the city's sanctuary ordinance," the 1989 law that bars the use of city funds to aid immigration enforcement, except as required by federal law.

Dorsey noted that San Francisco police have a written policy that allows them to notify immigration officials whenever they arrest someone for one of the 14 drug crimes and have reason to believe the person is not a U.S. citizen, as long as that belief is not based solely on the person's "foreign" appearance or inability to speak English.

He said he did not know, however, whether police have been following their written policy. Nathan Ballard, spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom, declined to answer that question, but said the Police Department is working with Herrera "to insure that its practices are consistent with the court's ruling" and with the state law.

David Klehm, lawyer for plaintiff Charles Fonseca, said Fonseca filed the suit in May 2007 after police failed to respond to his request for information about its policy and made it clear that they were ignoring the state law. He described Fonseca only as a retiree who has no connection with the police and is interested only in "making the city comply with the law."

The ruling opens a new front in the controversy over the sanctuary policy. In July, Newsom said the city was reversing a long-standing practice of refusing to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities after they were convicted of crimes in juvenile courts. The city had flown some of those youths to their native countries and sent others to group homes, from which most of them escaped.

In dismissing Fonseca's suit in September 2007, Superior Court Judge Peter Busch ruled that only the federal government, and not the state or local police, is authorized to enforce immigration laws. He cited a federal judge's ruling that overturned most of Proposition 187, a 1994 initiative, including a provision requiring police to verify suspects' immigration status and report illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

But the appeals court said the California law on drug arrests merely requires police to identify noncitizen suspects and leaves verification up to immigration officers. Quoting sponsors of the 1953 law, Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline said its main purpose was not deportation but getting rid of drug dealers.

The ruling is available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A120206.PDF.

www.sfgate.com

But the appeals court said the California law on drug arrests merely requires police to identify noncitizen suspects and leaves verification up to immigration officers. Quoting sponsors of the 1953 law, Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline said its main purpose was not deportation but getting rid of drug dealers.

So in other words they won't report illegals and when one gets on the news for killing someone the city and federal can just keep playing the blame game right?