WASHINGTON — California Sen. [crscore]Barbara Boxer[/crscore] lashed out at The Daily Caller Tuesday when it was pointed out to the senator that San Francisco law enforcement came out against the city’s sanctuary policy and local officers are prohibited from contacting federal authorities after collaring someone in the country illegally.
“Oh no they have not,” Boxer said, adding, “You’re facts are incorrect—Your facts are wrong.”
However, following the murder of Kate Steinle last summer at the hands of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, the San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) released a statement Aug. 1 coming out against San Francisco’s Sanctuary City policy. SFPOA president Martin Halloran wrote in part:
As I said in my original statement, the finger pointing has started. Well it is in full swing now. Every local politician is ducking for cover, hiding under a rock, or trying to justify their position. Public Defender Jeff Adachi is speaking for the accused murderer Sanchez. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is speaking on and pathetically trying to defend his ridiculous internal policy that tied the hands of his own agency and prevented the Sheriff’s Department from cooperating with federal authorities. Supervisors Avalos and Supervisor Campos are speaking on and defending the 2013 legislation that afforded Sanchez to be released on the streets rather than be deported for a sixth time. My question is, who is speaking for Kate? Right now it only appears to be her own grieving family, including her heartbroken father who witnessed his own daughter’s painful death.
Outside of Supervisor Mark Farrell, most local politicians are shying away from solutions. They must realize that something is wrong, but they are failing or refusing to offer solutions. The current Sanctuary City policy needs to be amended. The original ordinance adopted in the late 1980’s offered sanctuary to those who had fled their countries due to persecution based on political or religious beliefs, along with those being persecuted for sexual orientation.
It also afforded assurances to these immigrants that their immigration status would not be questioned simply for cooperating with law enforcement. We in law enforcement, more than anyone, know the importance of having the cooperation from all of the public, and I for one support those guidelines of the original ordinance. Now with the amendments put forward in 2013 by Supervisor Avalos, and the further restrictive internal policy put forward by Sheriff Mirkarimi, the current Sanctuary City policy offers a shield to criminals who know that they can hide behind this policy and avoid further deportation. Even Sanchez admitted in a jailhouse interview that he knew he would not be deported from San Francisco.
Republicans Sens. [crscore]Pat Toomey[/crscore] and [crscore]David Vitter[/crscore] introduced a bill Monday that would financially punish sanctuary cities that fail to cooperate with federal authorities. The legislation failed to find enough votes to end debate on the matter. Boxer argued that doing away with the current sanctuary city policy would make crime spike.
“Doing away with sanctuary cities, it leads to crime. That’s important to my police chiefs and police organizations. This is really an anti-law enforcement bill and will also cost billions of dollars to build all these prisons so it was not paid for. This was a budget buster and its anti-law enforcement. I think it’s dead,” she said, noting that the Fraternal Order of Police supports her position.
“Ask the fraternal order of police. Ask my San Jose police chiefs and all of my police chiefs. They say, unequivocally, ‘If you end sanctuary cities then you give sanctuaries to criminals.'”