Supervisors send PEP opposition and sheriff-memo response to full board after heated committee debate

San Francisco's Government and Oversight Committee spent much of a special Oct. 9 meeting debating two immigration-related resolutions and how the city should respond to federal changes in immigration enforcement.

Supervisor David Campos, sponsor of the resolution opposing the Priority Enforcement Program, told the committee the item was necessary after a summer tragedy at Pier 14 and subsequent national political rhetoric. Campos said the package before the committee had three parts — an ordinance to address gun control concerns, measures to minimize local law-enforcement contact with immigration authorities, and a pledge that "we in San Francisco will not participate in PEP." He framed the issue as one of public safety and trust: if undocumented residents fear law-enforcement will work with federal immigration agents, "they are not going to come forward," Campos said, adding in his remarks, "No more hate."

Supervisor Mark Farrell, sponsor of the second resolution, said his measure reaffirms support for the city's long-standing Sanctuary City and "Due Process for All" ordinances and asks the sheriff to rescind a March 13, 2015 departmentwide memorandum. Farrell said the memo went beyond the scope of local law in ways he found problematic and that the Board needed to provide direction. "There comes times at the Board of Supervisors in committees where people... see language at the last minute," Farrell said, arguing the committee should be able to consider such policy direction.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi (appearing as "Sheriff Mercarini" in the transcript) spoke to the committee and disputed several factual inferences about a high-profile transfer that helped prompt the debate. The sheriff said his memo was written to provide guidance, not to create an absolute prohibition on communication with federal authorities, and warned that rescinding a departmental policy without an alternative would be "reckless." He told supervisors that "policy does not cease communications with federal immigration authorities" and asked for legal clarity on when and how notification or transfer requests should occur.

Dozens of public commenters — immigrant organizers, attorneys, survivors of domestic violence and faith leaders — urged supervisors to reject cooperation with ICE and PEP, saying that any increase in local notification or transfers would chill reporting of crimes and imperil vulnerable residents. Yadira Sanchez, an undocumented organizer, described an early-morning ICE arrest of a 67-year-old family member and said ICE "cannot be trusted." Attorney Griselle Ruiz of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center warned that even notifications can lead to unconstitutional detentions in some jurisdictions.

Committee action and votes

After sustained debate over a late amendment proposed by Board President Breed (transcript label: "Bridal/Breed") to add explicit language about violent-felony carve-outs, Breed withdrew that amendment for committee consideration and said she would pursue language at the full Board. The committee then voted on item 1 (the Campos-sponsored PEP resolution) on a motion to forward the file without recommendation. The roll call recorded Supervisors Farrell and Breed as voting "Aye" and Chair Yee as dissenting; the motion carried 2-1, sending the resolution to the full Board without a committee recommendation.

On item 2 (the Farrell-sponsored resolution about the sheriff memo), supervisors worked through edits to remove the politically charged term "gag order" and instead refer by title to the sheriff's "departmentwide memorandum of 03/13/2015 regarding immigration and customs enforcement procedures, contact and communication." The committee also added language directing the creation of a new policy aligned with the city's Sanctuary City and Due Process for All ordinances to be in place before any rescission of the memo. That amended resolution was forwarded to the full Board with a favorable recommendation.

What happens next

Both items will go to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration on Oct. 20. Item 1 will arrive from committee without a recommendation; item 2 will arrive as amended with the committee's positive recommendation. The committee's actions reflect a split among supervisors over how to balance public-safety discretion for line officers with protections intended to preserve immigrant trust in local policing.

—Reporting from the Government and Oversight Committee meeting; the full Board will take up the measures on Oct. 20.