Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 21, 2013 8:00pm-8:31pm PDT

8:00 pm
haven't changed. and let me say that i respect everyone that's been involved in this process. there are many good people who have different perspectives on this. i think that the intentions that everyone has irrespective of their views, are good intentions. but i do believe that sometimes bad policy is made with good intentions and that sometimes there are unintended consequences that come out of the wrong policy choices being made. and the thing that i want to address today is this issue of the carve outs. i know that is the central question in terms of what legislation we move forward. and i know the intention of the carve outs is to protect and ensure, and to protect the public to ensure public safety. but i have to say that i will respectfully disagree with folks who are talking about the need for a carve out because,
8:01 pm
first of all, we have to understand what it is we're talking about. the issue before us is the issue of whether or not to give individuals who are charged with a crime due process. on the other hand is the separate issue of whether or not, separate and apart from that, we are going to follow immigration holds. whether or not we as a city are going to use our resources and become an extension and an arm of immigration. and on that particular question i wholeheartedly agree with the district attorney who i think needs to be given a great deal of credit for taking the very courageous stand that, to the extent that we truly care about public safety, absolutely. to the extent we truly care about public safety, the best thing that we can do in terms of public safety is to
8:02 pm
completely disassociate ourselves from immigration enforcement. (applause) >> that is the best thing. [cheering and applauding] >> the chief -- the chief law enforcement officer for the city and county of san francisco not only someone who serves as district attorney, but who previously served as the chief of police for this city and county of san francisco noted the dangers of going down the path of creating carve outs. as he rightly pointed out, if your fear is that somehow you're going to let dangerous criminals off the hook, there are tools that are already in place that the immigration agency has to ensure that those individuals are not just let
8:03 pm
free and let go into the public and endanger any resident. and that to the extent that there are things that can be done to strengthen the protections that are needed for the public, that the right place to do it is through the criminal justice system instead of dirtying our hands by becoming a partner with immigration. i think that george gastone is absolutely right. and there are votes that we take that i do think have a historical significance. this is one of those votes. there will be a time when people, people who are kids right now, maybe generations that have not been born, will talk about the trend that we have seen in the last few years where local governments have been forced to inject themselves in immigration
8:04 pm
enforcement. and those future generations will say what were people thinking in the year 2013 that we -- that they actually thought that this was the way to protect the public? this is one of those votes. there will be people who will look back at this and say, you know, how could that happen in this country? you know, we started the meeting with folks talking about how today is constitution day in the state capital and constitution day in the city and county of san francisco, i guess. well, constitution day is an important one. but the thing about the constitution and specifically about the first 10 amendments to that constitution, that bill of rights, is that it applies to everyone. it applies to every individual irrespective of what crime you have been charged with. it recognizes that you cannot
8:05 pm
ensure the safety of a public if you also do not provide individuals basic rights that allow them to have their fair day in court. and to the extent we deprive them of those rights, not only are we depriving them, but in a way we are taking something away from ourselves because those rights not only say something about how to treat people, but in so doing it says something about who we are as a people. and, so, i know that there will not be a vote today. i know that we're going to take some time. again, people want to do the right thing. everyone here is trying to do the right thing. but i am afraid that in the process of trying to do the right thing, we are going to have unattended consequences, and those consequences are going to be lived on a daily basis in neighborhoods like the one that i represent as george
8:06 pm
gascone noted, four out of 10 latinos are afraid to report crime to the police for fear that by reporting somehow they're going to be connected to the immigration system. by keeping those people from moving forward and contacting, having the trust to contact that police department, you are not only making them less safe, you are making the entire community less safe. so, it is my hope that we collectively decide that we in san francisco are going to be on the right side of history because the right side of history in this case is clear. let's pass this amendment to ensure due process for all, not due process only for some. (applause)
8:07 pm
[gavel] >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor mar. >> thank you, president chiu. i did appreciate that you brought up all the community-based organizations that are celebrating constitution day and citizenship day. and i think it was fitting that many of the organizations that are in the audience today before us haven't just been here for this annual day, but have been building on movement of immigrants and refugee communities with different efforts to fight for not only the dignity and human rights of undocumented people, but for broader european market update of all of our communities. i'm very proud that the asian and pacific islander community based organizations from the asian law caucus which is now a part of a broader network of the asian american justice center and many others that [speaker not understood] from formerly [speaker not understood] pilo and many others here, japanese americans citizen league and the [speaker
8:08 pm
not understood], asian pacific labor alliance, and the south asian american meeting together, the salvation community, many others are speaking up in a strong voice also for due process for all. on constitution day, i think it's important as others said, that we recognize that due process and the 14th and fifth amendments to the constitution protect everyone's universal rights against government abuse and arbitrary denial of liberty. and as we stand up hopefully to support the due process for all ordinance, put forward by supervisor avalos and 7 others of us and 8-person super majority, i hope that we all recognize that it's not due process for some, but due process for all as supervisor campos mentioned. i also wanted to say that this coalition that's before us today to i think three years ago we were working on the opt out to the so-called secure communities as others said,
8:09 pm
secure communities, the so-called secure communities really is not making our communities more safe, but it leads to in some ways the police and law enforcement becoming immigration agents which they are not trained for. and i think the heart of, in many ways, our sanctuary ordinance and our sanctuary city is based on that principle of not letting our police and law enforcement become entangled in immigration issues. many have said earlier in our hearing when we had the neighborhood services committee that supervisor yee was involved in as well as supervisor avalos and campos that the bush administration started a process of deportations and militarizing the border and separating and tearing apart families as a process that has continued through the obama administration. and in many ways that effort is what's before us today as well and as we as a city start to stand up again for our sanctuary ordinance and our sanctuary city, my hope is that our colleagues all 11 of us look at this issue on
8:10 pm
constitution day that it should be due process for all and not for some. so, i stand with the broad immigrant rights coalitions that are united from the asian and pacific islander communities to all of us that have been fighting for this for many decades at this historic moment to say no carve outs, due process for all. thank you. [cheering and applauding] [gavel] >> supervisor kim. >> thank you, chair chiu. i think that my previous three colleagues really eloquently talked about the deeply flawed nature of the f comp program and its impacting our communities. we all know that while the u.s. immigrations and custom employment stated [speaker not understood] is to target serious offenses, we all agree the program's cast is far too wide. as its own data shows, in california about 7 out of 10 of the over 93,500 californianses
8:11 pm
deported as of february 2014 had no convictionses whatsoever, ~ only minor offenses. to put a real face on the story, because i think we all talk about how programs like scom makes our communities feel less safe, i had an intern in my office whose family experienced a fairly violent burglary. their door was broken. their windows were completely shattered and all of their valuable belongings were gone. his immediate and he is a student at one of our esteemed u.c. collegeses, was of course to call the police ~. as he picked up his phone, his mom put her hand over his and said, we can't call the police. despite how terrified they were for their own safety, and she did not want to contact the police because she was afraid of being deported. he along with the rest of his family are noncitizens here in our city despite the fact that they are all working
8:12 pm
contributing members. he is in our colleges. they did not feel safe calling the police about a crime that made them feel deeply, deeply unsafe. this story eliminates why the scom program is clearly flawed and the solution to end scom is nationwide. we have made incredible strides towards making that happen. the trust act sponsored by assemblyman ammiano at the state level is a step forward by setting a clear standard for the very limited situations that immigration holds could possibly be upheld. and today's legislative initiative under the leadership of supervisor avalos and the many, many advocates that are in the room today is another step forward towards the you will matt objective of ending scom. the goal drives the decision of many of us in this room today. san francisco is a national leader in advancing [speaker not understood] policies that uphold the quality and fairness. we do hear matters to the rest of the country. we were the first city to raise our minimum wage above $10.
8:13 pm
we were one of the first to issue same sex marriage licenses and we were the first city to enact an ordinance reflecting the principles of the u.n. convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women in 1998. an action is simply not an option. at the same time there are those who are charged with protecting the public that have been very clear that they need to retain some sort of discretion and order to do their job. after many days and hours of difficult conversations, while i am proposing to bring to the table of this board is an outcome of those deliberations debating and creative thinking to bring together our jointly stated commitment against unjust racial profiling, deportation, and keeping our community safe. like all compromises, there are aspects that we are introducing, but does not make [speaker not understood], but i believe that our overall objective which is taking a stand against scom, while helping our public safety
8:14 pm
officials do the work they would like to do will be put in place with this very, very limited carve out. the amendments that i'm introducing i've handed out copies to all members of the board will be to establish the two-part analysis for law enforcement to use to make sure that their public safety objectives are being met. the only time that law enforcement will even consider -- and this is not a requirement -- will consider honoring an immigration hold is this the individual who is the subject of the hold has been convicted of a violent felony, human trafficking with assault of a deadly weapon or use of a gun in the commission of a violent fellfully, and is currently being charged with one of those violent crimes. even then law enforcement will be required to take evidence of rehabilitation, community ties, status of victim, of domestic violence of a crime, status as a parent of u.s. citizen children, and other factors before making a final decision on whether or not to honor that hold.
8:15 pm
more over, after three years or upon effective date of comprehensive immigration reform which we hope will happen sooner than in three years on a federal level, this limited set of carve outs will expire. the sheriff will also be mandate today perform an annual review and report of the times when he or she has exercised their discretion so we can maintain oversight of the policy at the board level. i believe that these amendments bring us closer to the place of what our stated objectives is, but i want to really recognize the fact that so many people in this room worked incredibly hard to bring us to the place that we are today. i know that what we have before us is something that is just a moment in time, but i know that these discussions began in december with supervisor avalos's office and many hours of blood, sweat and tear were put to convincing many elected officials in this room to co-sponsor this legislation that was brought before the city in july.
8:16 pm
and i don't think that we would be in this place if not for the organizing, the advocacy, but also the courage of many of our noncitizens who have come out to tell why this policy makes them feel unsafe as a resident of the city and county of san francisco. i also want to recognize some of our legislative staff members that have spent quite a bit of time on this. amy chan, andrea [speaker not understood], ivy lee in particular in my office is a former attorney at api legal outreach and asian caucus and community for civil rights. they did a lot of work to being as creative as possible in terms of narrowing the carve out. so, we are specifically addressing as much as possible the specific concerns of our public safety officials while passing the strongest possible due process ordinance that will be in effect in this city. so, unfortunately we do not have the languages today. they will be ready for our board meeting next week. so,ly will be making a motion to continue, but i did want the
8:17 pm
public to know exactly what the amendments are that we are introducing today. >> thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor kim has made a motion it continue. is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor cohen. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. and i, whatever folks' differing views of aspects of the legislation, i want to thank everyone who has worked on getting us to where we are today, including i know the flurry of activity today in terms of having dialogue and coming up with different creative ideas. i think it did achieve a goal that i'm going to speculate that all of us share, and that is to try to pass legislation that fosters -- allows us to foster trust to immigrant communities and law enforcement and to continue to struggle locally hopefully in a positive direction to do what we can do
8:18 pm
in light of a completely broken and disfunctional and awful federal immigration system ~ and one that has not yet been fixed and i hope will be fixed in the near future. i came out early and publicly in opposition to secure communities. i came out early publicly in favor as a trust act. i very much would like to be able to support this legislation. i want us to pass it unanimously to send a strong message to our immigrant communities. we also know that overwhelmingly the people who will be impacted, who are impacted by secure communities or who would be impacted by this legislation have not committed violent crimes. probably never done anything violent in their lives. they find themselves in the criminal justice system for whatever reason and what we don't want to do is have them get caught up in federal immigration systemses providing
8:19 pm
families causing all sorts of problems for our community. ~ dividing families i was very happy to see something in writing that we received a little while ago in the meeting. i look forward to reviewing it carefully and i'm hoping that we can have something where we can all move forward together and send a very powerful message from san francisco about the need for immigration reform and about our deep desire to support and to keep our immigrant community in san francisco together and united. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you, president chiu. first of all, i do want to thank supervisor avalos for introducing this legislation. for the most part it is something that i actually do agree with. like supervisor wiener said, would love for the board to support unanimously at the end of the day. but we all know san francisco is a city that embraces people from all walks of life and certainly as a product of immigrant parents myself, i truly embrace the diversity of
8:20 pm
our residents. however, i do believe that there is a fine line and a very important distinction between being a sanctuary city and a safe haven for serious and/or violent activity and whether you are -- boo. [gavel] >> if i can just finish. whether you are a citizen or undocumented immigrant, i think many of us can all agree we have no tolerance for serious or violent crimes in our community. and again, we as citizens as well are held to very high standards. and like supervisor avalos, i do represent a district made up of many immigrants and many of whom which also care very much about public safety. so, today i really just want to say that i want to thank supervisor kim for bringing forth the ideas for proposed amendments that we will consider at the next board meeting. and again, although it is not something that, you know, i agree with every single aspect, i think that it has reached a good balance and compromise where all of us can hopefully eventually agree. so, with that, again, i want to
8:21 pm
thank supervisor avalos and supervisor kim. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. [gavel] >> i'll ask for people's respect here in the chamber, please. thank you. supervisor cohen. >> the beautiful thing about being in this country as such you have the right to articulate your views in a safe space. and as advocates, we need to protect every person's rights even when we don't agree with them. supervisor avalos, thank you very much for stepping up and bringing this legislation before us. i'm happy to be one of your supporters. several weeks ago. i will be supporting the proposed changes today. also wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the immigrants right commission, public safety partners, office of 3xi i can engagement and immigrant affairs, the san francisco immigrant rights, the french community, puov, domestic violence partners. one of the critical pieces that
8:22 pm
i'm most closely aligned with is making sure that victims of domestic violence are protected and they feel safe and they're able to report crimes as well as continue to heal. i also want to acknowledge and thank the african advocacy network for their leadership. oftentimes we'll talk about immigration in this city. we talk about it from an asian perspective, pacific islander perspective, latino perspective. we often forget our africans, west african brothers andess is at therx who struggle with the same debilitating experience of living in the shadows. ~ sisters so, i'm grateful. i their numbers are very small. i thank you very much for being here. i also want to acknowledge the staff persons, number of hours alone today i think have racked up. [speaker not understood] from my office, ivy, supervisor
8:23 pm
avalos' raquel in your office. thank you, ladies for being a part of this. i, too, share the comments of supervisor wiener and desire to see a unanimous vote. if you stop and think about what a powerful statement we would have an opportunity to send not just to the san francisco bay area, but the entire country if not the world. wouldn't that be powerful? all of our collective voices coming together making a statement. i was an early supporter of this ordinance because i believe that for the vast majority of undocumented residents in our city, this policy will provide them with a more protection against [speaker not understood] they may have ever had. i also support the proposed changes that supervisor kim is proposing today and look forward to our continued work as partners of not only law makers and policy makers just this body, but the collective body of san francisco, each and every one of us have a role to play.
8:24 pm
and it's important and incumbent upon us to continue to push and to continue to ask questions, but also creating a respectful environment so that all of our prospectives can have voice and so we can create pieces of legislation that is inclusive for everyone. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i do appreciate the comments from my colleagues and i do think it is important to be respectful. we have different opinions and i think that everyone here has articulated legitimate concerns. i do want to make a couple of points, though, and one of it -- the sad things about these kinds of carve outs, if you actually look at some of the cases that have transpired, not only in california, but in the country, these types of carve outs actually have unintended consequences because what often happens is that you send individuals to ice. those individuals end up being deported and they're deported,
8:25 pm
by the way, to countries for their own criminal justice system is basically dysfunctional and those people are basically free not only to do whatever they're doing in those countries, but what often happens is they actually come back to this country, reenter the country, and yet again find themselves doing some of the same things that they have been accused. by actually not deporting them and actually keeping them within the criminal justice system, you are in fact providing more protection to the residents of this city and of this country and there are many examples in the undocumented youth scenario where that happens, where we actually deported individuals that went back and came back and yet again posed a threat to our city. and, so, that's the sad thing about these carve outs and what we're doing here today is that in many respects we're doing
8:26 pm
something that in the end is going to have the opposite effect of what we want. i understand where people are coming from. i respect that. but i think it's not just about the intent. it is really understanding how the system works and at the end of the day the key here is to make sure that a criminal individual remains within the criminal justice system. the carve out in my view is going to have the opposite effect down the road. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you. thanks for everybody's comments. i just want to make a quick comment. part of me considering possibly supporting these amendments is the status of limitation piece and also the annual review piece which is really important for me to under what real
8:27 pm
impact these consequences that supervisor campos is talking about. i hope that we consider, since we are not voting on it today, when you say annual review, i really would feel a lot more comfortable if this review came within six months rather than waiting for a whole year because if there is any types of issues with what we just did, i'd like to be able to correct it sooner than later. >> president chiu. >> thank you. first of all, i want to take a moment and thank all the advocates who are here and everyone in this room who i know deep down in all of our hearts we know that we are a city that stands up for immigrants. the very first time i came to this board chamber, i think this was about 1998, and i stood up at that podium was to speak in support of the sanctuary city ordinance. and i know that everyone here does believe in the importance of that and what we need to do
8:28 pm
to move that forward. i think a folks know, regardless of how any of us felt, regardless of how i vote or anyone sitting here votes ~, i don't think there is support at this time for the legislation as it currently stands. and because of that i first want to thank supervisor avalos for his leadership in moving this forward with advocates to really allow us to contemplate how we pass the strongest possible ordinance to protect the due process of our immigrants. i also want to thank supervisor kim for working with our immigrant advocates to craft the narrowest of circumstances under which we might consider whether or not our sheriff or law enforcement has the discretion to consider communications with the federal government. i do think that what supervisor kim has proposed does address and go a long way to dealing with some of the unintended consequences but what we're talking about is statute of limitations in the amendment, annual review, a sunset
8:29 pm
provision. and i think many of us believe that within the next few years we will show that this policy of not turning individuals over to ice makes sense and has not jeopardized our public safety, but that being said i think that what supervisor kim has proposed is the narrowest of circumstances to ensure that we are considering the issues in front of us. i know that this is -- these are amendments that we'll need to sit for next week, but i look forward to continued conversations on this. i do think that what we are trying to do today is to craft the strongest possible protections for our community, to ensure the rights of our community and the public safety of our community. and i do hope as others have said, that we'll be able to move forward with unanimous vote come next week. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to address supervisor yee. i will add in the language that
8:30 pm
we will do a review within six months of when the ordinance goes into effect. so, we will add that on top of the annual review. i think that makes a lot of sense. and just understand, the report is really going to give the board an opportunity to monitor how this very limited carve out is going. is it having the public safety impact that some of the advocates have stated, or is it over reaching? on the other side, we may find that it actually is decreasing people's ability or people's trust because of the over reaching nature of the discretion. that will give us another opportunity to continue to refine this legislation. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i do want to thank supervisor kim because i think you are trying to sort of narrow the carve out as much as possible. i would simply urge that between now and the time that this comes back that ther