Of the many serious flaws that attach themselves to progressive ideology, perhaps the worst is the reality that the rule of law means nothing if it conflicts with the progressive worldview. In San Francisco, officials there have decided that federal immigration law will cast be cast aside to appease progressive sensibilities: they will defy cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and release arrested illegal aliens before they can be taken by ICE for possible deportation.
But it gets even more ridiculous. San Fran Sheriff Michael Hennessey told the San Francisco Examiner he will begin thumbing his nose at federal law enforcement officials on June 1st — to comply with San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance. For the far too many Americans who still don't know what a sanctuary city is, it is yet another example of progressive contempt for the rule of law: police and other law enforcement officials in sanctuary cities are expressly forbidden to inquire about one's immigration status in the course of making an arrest. In many sanctuary cities, it is even forbidden if the suspect is arrested for a felony.
Hennessy illuminates the Orwellain nature of his defiance, which amounts to breaking the law to enforce a statute which also breaks the law. "I'm trying to enforce San Francisco's city of refuge law," he said. "The city of refuge law says we are not supposed to comply with federal officials except with felonies. I'm just doing our best to enforce local law. That's my job."
Except that it's not. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 states that an immigrant unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than six months, but less than one year, must remain out of the country for three years, absent a pardon. More than a year merits a ten year ban, absent a pardon. Anyone returning without a pardon cannot apply for a waiver for ten years. More importantly, prior to the act, immediate deportation was triggered only for offenses that could lead to five years or more in jail. Now, minor offenses make an individual eligible for deportation, with one exception: a 2001 Supreme Court ruling said the law could not be applied retroactively to anyone who pled guilty to a crime that was of a non-deportable nature prior to the law's enactment.
What irks our intrepid sheriff and his progressive soulmates? ICE has a program designed to thwart sanctuary cities, known as Secure Communities, enacted in 2008. It allows ICE to check fingerprint data collected during the booking process. If ICE suspects an arrestee of being an illegal alien, they can issue a "detainer" to local officials, requiring them to hold such suspects until ICE picks them up. In other words, it isn't necessary for an illegal to commit another crime on top of sneaking across the border. As reported by the San Francisco Examiner, between June 2010 and last February, 111 people were deported simply for being here illegally, according to ICE. In addition, 85 people who committed low-level crimes, including shoplifting, drinking in public or drug possession, along with 45 people who had committed felonies were also deported. According to Fox News, "between October 2008 and March 2011, more than 7 million people who have been arrested have had their fingerprints run through the ICE program. Roughly 197,000 were identified as suspected illegal immigrants, and nearly 40 percent of those were in California, according to statistics provided by ICE."
40 percent of 197,000 is 78,800 illegal aliens identified in California alone. When Hennessey's program kicks in? Low-level crime suspects will be released, even if ICE has put a detainer on them.
Progressives are thrilled. At a recent campaign event for Hennessy's prospective successor (he's retiring after 31 years) City Board Supervisor David Campos called Hennssey the "most progressive and most effective sheriff in the country," adding that "[H]e's not afraid to stand up for what's right," in reference to Hennessy's decision to completely defy federal immigration law.
Those San Franciscans and other Americans not quite as "enlightened?" Forced to live with the reality that un-deported illegals have committed horrendous crimes, including an MS-13 gang member with two felony convictions who murdered a father and his two sons — because San Francisco law enforcement agencies never turned him over to federal authorities for removal. Forced to live the the statistical probability that out of 78,800 identified illegals, if only one percent of them are potentially violent felons, 788 ticking time bombs are loose in the Golden State.
Not to worry, though. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is on the case. On April 25th, she told the San Francisco Chronicle that the whole "opt-in, opt-out thing was a misunderstanding from the get-go...and we have tried to correct that," emphasizing that local governments do not have the option to drop out of the Secure Communities program. San Francisco's response? The Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act, or "TRUST Act," specifically aimed at defying federal immigration law. It has already passed the Public Safety Committee in a 5-2 vote, and is headed for the general assembly.
Where's U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder? It's been quite some time since that dedicated public servant hammered the state of Arizona for its ostensible violation of federal immigration law. Why is he MIA on San Francisco's unquestionable violation of it? Why have the feds allowed sanctuary cities to flout the law with impunity for years?
Let's giver Mr. Holder the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he is "unaware" of San Francisco's status. If so, all he has to do is go to the city and it is likely he'll encounter an $83,000 ad campaign which began on April 4th. It features TV and radio ads, billboards and bus signs, as well as brochures distributed at police stations and hospitals, trumpeting San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city, promising promising "safe access" to city services regardless of one's residency status. "We're inviting people to come out of the shadows and take advantage of services," said Mayor Gavin Newsom. "We've heard from 'The O'Reilly Factor' types, but we're convinced that this is the right thing to do," he added.
The rule of law versus the progressive definition of the "right thing to do." It doesn't get any more ideologically bankrupt than that.
