Board splits over urging sheriff to rescind memo; supervisors unanimously oppose PEP as amended

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Oct. 20 debated whether to urge the sheriff to rescind a February 2015 departmental memorandum limiting communications with federal immigration authorities and whether the city should refuse participation in the federal Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). After several hours of debate, the board voted 6-5 to table an urging resolution about the sheriff's memo (item 12). Later the board unanimously adopted a separate resolution (item 14), as amended by Board President London Breed, calling on the sheriff not to participate in PEP except as allowed under existing city law.

Supporters of the board's nonbinding resolution opposing PEP said the federal program, which focuses on notifications instead of hold requests that previously had been used by ICE, would undermine trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement and thereby harm public safety. "If our community saw that the sheriff's department was picking up the phone to tell ICE that an undocumented person was ready for pickup, it would completely undermine the relationships that we try to create with due process for all," said Supervisor John Avalos.

Opponents said the urging resolution aimed at rescinding the sheriff's memorandum went too far and risked interfering with public-safety discretion. Supervisor Malia Cohen asked colleagues to table the urging resolution and warned that a symbolic, nonbinding action could undermine trust among witnesses and victims who might otherwise come forward. "A nonbinding resolution can only garner media attention on this issue, and I think it's harmful to public policy," Cohen said during floor remarks.

The table motion (to set aside item 12) was called and carried 6-5. The roll call on that motion recorded ayes from Supervisors Mark Farrell (no), Supervisor Tang (no), Supervisor Wiener (no), Supervisor Breed (no), Supervisor Christensen (no) and yes votes from Supervisors Yi, Avalos, Campos, Cohen, Kim and Mar; the motion passed and item 12 was tabled. Later, President Breed offered an amendment to item 14 clarifying that the board calls upon the sheriff not to participate in PEP "except as allowed in Administrative Code 12H.0.2-1 or 12I.0.3," language intended to align the resolution with the sanctuary and due-process exceptions already codified in San Francisco law. That amended resolution passed unanimously (11-0).

Speakers on the item described individual stories of community members affected by federal immigration enforcement and said those experiences informed their votes. Supporters of the anti-PEP resolution quoted community advocates and people who said they had lost trust in law enforcement after Secure Communities and related federal programs. Opponents emphasized the need for measured policymaking and for preserving law-enforcement discretion in some circumstances; they urged more time for legislative review rather than a symbolic vote. Several supervisors said they were willing to work on changes to the existing local ordinances (sanctuary city and the due process ordinance) to make the city's policies clear in light of federal program changes.

The board's action leaves the sheriff's memorandum and the question of departmental practice unresolved by ordinance; it does, however, produce a unanimous statement that the board opposes PEP in general while acknowledging the limited public-safety exceptions already written into San Francisco law.

The debate drew extended public comment from immigrant-rights advocates and law students urging condemnation of the Dominican Republic's recent nationality policies and from San Franciscans describing local immigration enforcement impacts. The board amended and adopted item 14 and tabled item 12 for future consideration.

Votes at a glance: the table motion on item 12 carried 6-5; item 14 (oppose PEP) passed as amended 11-0.