Pubdate: Thu, 03 Jul 2008
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: B - 6
Copyright: 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Gavin+Newsom

NO SANCTUARY FOR DRUG DEALERS

Don't blame the kid-glove treatment of Honduran drug dealers on the 
1989 ordinance that made San Francisco a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.

That ordinance made it clear that there should be no sanctuary for 
immigrants accused of serious crimes. A 1994 memo from the city 
attorney's office to the probation department was even more specific: 
The exception to allow the prosecution of criminals would apply to 
"both adults and criminals" accused of felonies.

The orgins of this outrageously lax treatment of young drug dealers - 
shielding them from federal immigration authorites, then flying them 
home to Honduras at city taxpayer expense - can be traced to the 
recommendations submitted to the juvenile court by San Francisco's 
juvenile probation department.

The director of that department, William Siffermann, was appointed by 
Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2005. Siffermann's department answers to the 
Juvenile Probation Commission. All six of its members were appointed 
by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has been trying mightily to distance himself from the furor 
created by revelations that the city was giving juvenile drug dealers 
a plane ride home instead of a referral to the feds for deportation.

The mayor can't have it both ways. On one hand, he said Tuesday: "I 
don't have the authority here. I have a bully pulpit. The courts have 
the authority here." At the same time, he has claimed credit for 
stopping the practice when he learned of it in mid-May.

Then again, the city's Plan B was equally irresponsible: Eight 
convicted juvenile drug dealers from Honduras were sent to unsecured 
group homes in San Bernardino County - and they promptly escaped.

District Attorney Kamala Harris does not emerge unscathed. Her 
prosecutors should have known that convicted drug dealers were being 
allowed to bypass deportation. If they did raise objections, they 
were ineffective. If they did not, then they were either unclear on 
the law or not looking out for the best interest of the city.

Judge Donna Hitchens, head of San Francisco's juvenile courts, also 
must be held accountable. She tried to deflect responsibility by 
suggesting "we are only the judicial branch" and that the conflict 
was between the city and federal immigration authorities.

But the courts clearly had the authority to reject the juvenile 
officers' recommendations.

"The court has the ultimate authority - not a district attorney, not 
a juvenile probation officer and not a defense attorney," said 
retired San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp. "It's 
still you're responsibility - you're the judge - you don't have to go 
along with their recommendations.

"They are all equally complicit."

Both Newsom and Harris are now expressing their unequivocal 
objections to the notion of sending young drug dealers home at city expense.

"We're going to fix this," Newsom vowed Wednesday.

In fairness, the practice predates his tenure by at least two 
decades. Still, Newsom's appointed director of juvenile probation had 
the opportunity to change the policy. He did not.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi defended the return flights 
as a practical and humane alternative to allowing federal authorities 
to take the Hondurans to one of the 18 detention centers, where they 
might be held for months with little or no contact with their 
families back home.

"These kids aren't like Scarface, where they're mini-gangsters who 
are coming her to make millions of dollars," Adachi said. Most of 
these defendants, he said, are impoverished youth who are being 
exploited by traffickers.

Yes, these young drug dealers should be sent home - but through the 
federal deportation process, which would seriously complicate their 
efforts to return to this country.

The purpose of the 1989 sanctuary ordinance was to help lift a pall 
of fear and uncertainty among people who may have come here 
illegally, but now live within the law. Those who come here to deal 
drugs should experience both fear and a certainty that they will be 
subject to deportation.

[sidebar]

WHAT IS THE LAW?

San Francisco's 'Sanctuary Ordinance'

The city's Sanctuary Ordinance does not prohibit the city from 
alerting federal authorities when an undocumented immigrant has been 
booked in connection with felony allegations. A 1994 memorandum from 
the city attorney's office to the probation department made clear 
that "this exception applied to both adults and juveniles."

State Law on Juvenile Court Records

While juvenile court records are presumed confidential, state law 
does allow exceptions for state and federal law enforcement agencies, 
school systems, probation departments and the California Youth 
Authority "if that agency is investigating criminal or juvenile 
proceedings involving the child."

Federal Immigration Law

The city is not required to turn over information about juvenile detainees.

However, under federal law, it would be a crime for any person "in 
knowing or reckless disregard of the fact that an alien is illegally 
in the U.S." to "conceal, harbor or shield" the immigrant or to 
"transport, move or attempt to move" the immigrant within the United States.

Source: A July 1, 2008, Memo to Mayor Gavin Newsom from City Attorney 
Dennis Herrera's office.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake