"Help Me, Dad!" Survivors of Victims of Illegal Alien Criminals Address Congress

Almost as quickly as she succumbed to the gunshot that ended her life, Kathryn Steinle became the new face of Victims of Illegal Alien Criminals. We have learned, in the intervening days, that her killer has entered the USA illegally five separate times, and had just been in prison for his most recent criminal re-entry to the US. The story we know now is one of dereliction of duty and failure of care.

Those responsible for dereliction and failure include the City and County of San Francisco and the Obama administration. Responsibility lies with the City and County because of its avant garde rejection of cooperation with the federal government in the enforcement of ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) detainers. Responsibility lies with the Obama administration (and preceding ones) for allowing local governments to continue to benefit from federal law enforcement assistance and funding while those local governments refuse to assist with detainer and removal of even convicted felon illegal aliens.

Perhaps all that will come of Kathryn Steinle's sad demise is further outrage in broad swaths of the Nation, outrage at a federal government that refuses to enforce borders despite a quiver full of potential enforcement tools, outrage at local governments that take the same avant garde approach responding to the problem of crime among illegal aliens as San Francisco has done.

Or, perhaps, Steinle's death will bring to fruition in the Congress a comprehensive response to the harms that violent illegal aliens cause citizens. To legislate, Congress must investigate. Yesterday marked an important milestone in that process. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard from the families of several Americans killed by illegal aliens.

You can watch the entire hearing. Witnesses submitted written testimony and links to their submissions are found at the same link. While the Senate also heard from activists and law enforcement officials, today, I think we should pay respects to those whose families were brought to Capitol Hill because their loved ones were the victims of fatal crimes.

Josh Wilkerson

How many times do we hear that terrible complaint that a parent should not have to bury their child? Laura Wilkerson had to bury her son, Joshua.

Josh, according to his mother, was a good, decent, and caring young man. In 2010, he was in his senior year in high school. The last time she saw him alive, they hugged, and exchanged "I love yous."

That day, Joshua did not come home. Instead, he died at the hands of an illegal alien. Hermilo Moralez, from Belize, had just recently been kicked out of his mother's home due to his harassment there. He had been in court for that just days before he murdered Josh.

Josh had given Hermilo a ride after school, something he had done a few times before. The ride ended in Josh's death. Here is Josh's mom explaining what happened:

The killer was a black belt in mixed martial arts. He bragged from the stand about how his "killing skills" just took over. We watched as he got off of the stand and stood over the District Attorney so he could show the jury how he strangled Josh. 

He said that he first hit Josh in the face, so that he would not be able to fight back. He then kneed him in his stomach. We listened to him say that he was frustrated that Josh still had bloody bubbles coming out of his nose. He picked up a closet rod and beat Josh so severely on the head that the rod broke into 4 pieces. He strangled him over and over. He waited, Joshua died. 

Per the Medical Examiner he tortured him. He tied Joshua up like an animal. He cleaned up the scene, put Josh in our truck and went to the store to buy gasoline. He put Josh in a field. He put his school lD next to Josh's body, doused him with the gas and set him on fire. After that the killer went to a friend's house, took a shower, and went to see a movie. He laughed, He had popcorn and a coke.

Laura also read part of the Coroner's Report to the Committee:

This body is received in a grey body bag. A white male with a toe tag that reads Joshua Wilkerson. He is 100 pounds. He has been tied up with braided rope multiple times. 13 rounds of rope from his neck, through the belt loop on the back of his pants, to his hands and feet behind his back. His body is charred from fire. There is significant skin slippage on his buttocks, his abdomen, and on his face. His hands are completely charred. He has many fractures in his face. His throat is crushed. ln his pocket he has 1 piece of gum and a tardy slip.

How does a mother find the strength to go on at all? How does she find the strength to come to Washington, to speak for her dead son?

Josh Wilkerson's mom witnessed the trial and conviction of her son's killer. She knows -- absent unforeseen circumstances -- that he will be locked securely away for a half century. While that knowledge may seem to provide "closure," it is cold comfort to the mother of a lost son.

Dennis McCann

The Judiciary Committee also heard from Brian McCann, who testified about the killing of his brother, Dennis. Brian and his family have been denied the "closure" of seeing the killer of Dennis McCann tried, convicted and confined for his criminal acts. Brian's explanation of the Dennis' 2011 death, as told to the Committee, is quite brief:

Denny was crossing Kedzie Avenue on a marked crosswalk four years ago and was violently struck by a drunk driver who dragged Denny under his car for a block in an attempt to flee before Denny died.

The Chicago Tribune covered Dennis' death at the time. You can read their coverage here. Here are the essentials from the Tribune:

Alberto Aceves was driving home from his landscaping job Wednesday evening when he saw a black Dodge Neon in front of him strike a man who was crossing the street in Chicago's bustling Logan Square neighborhood.

"I heard the impact, saw this man go up into the sky and land on the windshield," Aceves, 39, said Friday. "I thought, OK, he hit him, but the driver is going to stop. He might be all right." 

But then the driver stepped on the gas, rolling over William "Dennis" McCann, 66, and dragging his body north on Kedzie Avenue, Aceves said. He chased after the hit-and-run driver to try to get a better look at the car's license plate. 

"I pull up to the passenger side screaming at him, 'Stop! The guy's under your car!'" Aceves said. 

An off-duty Chicago police officer headed home after his shift joined the chase after noticing a pair of sandals in the street and then spotting the body being dragged underneath the Neon, Assistant State's Attorney Allison Sise said.

With McCann's body still lodged under the car, Chavez stopped about a block north and ran into an alley. As Aceves gave chase on foot, the officer ran past him with his gun drawn, shouting, "Stop or I'll shoot!" according to Aceves.

"He (Chavez) turned around and me and the officer just took him down to the ground," Aceves said. 

 The driver was both significantly impaired when he killed McCann, and a repeat drunk driving offender:

The driver, Saul Chavez, 35, was ordered held Friday on $250,000 bond on charges of aggravated DUI involving a death. Prosecutors said Chavez had a blood-alcohol content of 0.29 percent, or nearly four times the legal limit of 0.08 percent. He had no license and had completed a 2-year probation sentence in February for a 2009 drunken-driving conviction, they said.

In his Congressional testimony, Brian McCann explained why he and his family have been denied closure. What he says is not pretty, and it implicates yet another "Sanctuary City," this time Cook County-Chicago, because of their refusal to honor ICE detainers and the decision to adopt such a policy while Dennis McCann's killer was in custody:

[We were] notified by the Chicago Police and the killer was placed into custody and charged with Aggravated DUI causing death.Two days later ICE issued a detainer because the young man was an illegal alien with a prior felony. The family was assured by the Cook County prosecutor that the defendant would not be allowed to post bail and be released. Three months later the Cook County Board passed the ordinance that effectively requires the Sheriff to ignore detainers. During the intervening weeks after Denny’s violent death Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle and former mayoral candidate and Commissioner Jesus Garcia pushed for the ordinance and rammed it through on September 7,2011. Two months later the killer made bail and absconded to Mexico.

According to the FBI, Dennis McCann's killer is living in Mexico, and driving there.

McCann's testimony leaves you frustrated. The killer didn't just strike Dennis McCann. He then attempted to flee the scene of the crime, dragging McCann's body. McCann died at the scene from massive internal injury. His brother's killer, a serial drunk driver, was in police custody. ICE had placed a detainer request with law enforcement. And Chicago-Cook County refused to honor the ICE detainer, released the killer, allowing him to escape justice entirely.

Deputy Danny Oliver

A crime spree that started in Sacramento set the stage for the compelling testimony of Susan Oliver, the widow of Sacramento Sheriff's Deputy Danny Paul Oliver:

"Danny was walking toward a car to see what the occupants were doing on his beat. Danny prided himself on helping communities and feeling like he was truly making a difference. Danny was a POP officer also known as a Problem Oriented Policing. My husband and father of two never made it to the driver’s window on Friday October 24, 2014. At about 10:30 a.m., a man armed with numerous weapons aimed one out of the car from the parking lot of a Motel 6 at Arden and Ethan Way in Sacramento and opened fire, killing my husband, Danny Paul Oliver, with a shot to the forehead as my husband simply asked how the armed man’s day was going."

Deputy Oliver was shot and killed by a man subsequently identified as Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte. Bracamonte had been twice deported from the US and was present illegally when he killed Deputy Oliver and, later the same day, Placer County Sheriff's Deputy Michael David Davis, Jr. If there was any doubt of Bracamonte's responsibility for the murders of Deputies Oliver and Davis, he removed those doubts in a moment of courtroom drama, just after a hearing in his case ended, when he called out that he had, in fact, killed both officers.

Susan Oliver opened her sorrow to the Committee and to us. She explained the pain of loss of her husband:

Each day I look for parental back up to child rearing and I feel the loss. Each day my children reach mild stones like a wedding engagement, graduations, and our weekly family brunches, I am reminded that I no longer have my husband. I was married for 25 years to my high school sweet heart and we  watched each other grow up. 

Let that sit with you.

Picture yourself, with a child out of sorts, or a teen going wayward. Picture yourself turning to your husband, or your wife, but they aren't there. They aren't there because they are dead. And, they are dead because your City, your County, your State and your Nation refused to cooperate together to remove illegal alien criminals from the country, knowing that those very illegal alien criminals are hurting, maiming, and yes, killing American citizens in our homes, on our streets.

Grant Ronnebeck

In January, 2015, Grant Ronnebeck, 21, was working at a convenience store, QuikTrip, in Mesa, Arizona. Grant had worked at QT for five years. According to family members, Grant was a bright and happy young man. He lived an active life, and was planning his future.

Apolinar Altamirano cut that bright life, that anticipated future, short on January 22 of this year. Atlamirano stepped up to the counter at the QuikTrip, placed a container of change on it, and demanded a pack of cigarettes. Grant reached for the change and would have begun counting it, and indicated to Altamirano what he was doing. Altamirano shot Grant in the face, killing him. He then stepped in and grabbed two packs of cigarettes. He was captured following a high speed chase.

Altamirano had been charge just recently for trespassing at the same store, and had another, more serious charge resulting from an incident in which he and two other men held a woman captive and sexually assaulted her. Prosecutors agreed to drop the more serious charges in that case on Altamirano's plea to the lesser offenses. He was on probation at the time he murdered Grant:

Police said Altamirano was removed from the same store for trespassing on Jan. 9.He also was served with an injunction against harassment on Jan. 19 and is a convicted felon, which prohibits him from possessing firearms. Altamirano has a short criminal history. He was arrested in August 2012 and in January 2013, he took a plea deal for second-degree burglary to have theft and kidnapping charges dismissed. He was sentenced to two years of probation.

[Apparently a law prohibiting Altamirano from possessing a weapon did not stop him from using one to kill Grant.]

Grant's uncle's testimony brought additional concerning facts to light, related to the failure of agencies at the federal and state level to work together, and to communicate, and showing how the resulting harms, including Grant's murder and the sexual assault and kidnapping mentioned above would have been prevented if a different framework of relations between agencies governed:

He was sentenced to two years of probation and turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency due to his undocumented status in the United States. He never served any time in custody related to that offense! 

ICE, “The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency” released the now convicted felon Altamirano on a $10,000 bond pending a deportation hearing. 

In the two years since then, while awaiting his deportation hearing, Altamirano has had two orders of protection filed against him, including one from a woman who claimed he threatened to kill her, and pointed a gun at her boyfriend. 

ICE was reportedly notified of the protection orders by a Mesa Superior Court judge. 

Altamirano was still allowed to remain free in our Country.

So an armed rapist, an illegal alien that was allowed to plead to a lesser offense of ARMED BURGLARY, wandered the land, with the allowance of ICE, and then unleashed the nightmarish havoc that Grant's family still lives within today.

Kathryn Steinle

The Judiciary Committee heard from Jim Steinle, the father of Kathryn Steinle, recently murdered in San Francisco. Jim's description of the moment his daughter's life ended is heart-rending:

[W]e were walking arm in arm on Pier 14 In San Francisco, enjoying a wonderful day together. Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, and looked at me and said “Help me, Dad.”  

Those are the last words I will ever hear from my daughter. 

"Help me, Dad."

Consider what it must be like, night after night, to contemplate those words. To hear them in your heart, your mind. To see the fire that, by all accounts burned with a warming glow for everyone, expire so suddenly, and so unexpectedly, and so unreasonably. Place yourself in Jim's position. Waking in the night, hearing your daughter crying out, "Help me, Dad."

Of course, we know now that Kate's killer, Francisco Sanchez had seven felony convictions prior to the shooting on Pier 14 at the Embarcadero. We know that he was five times deported from the country, and that, in fact, his most recent re-entry to the country resulted in his incarceration for illegal entry.

We know that Kate died from the bullet of a gun belonging to a federal agent of the Bureau of Land Management [and this administration wants to take Americans' guns while unable to account for its own]. We know that Sanchez should have been deported, and would have, if the City and County of San Francisco did not dabble in the avant garde "sanctuary city" movement. We know that ICE was fully apprised of the refusal of law enforcement in San Francisco to honor its deportation detainers yet ICE had Sanchez transported to San Francisco when he was about to complete his federal sentence so that San Francisco could act on a long-standing drug warrant from the 1990s.

We know that a day after San Francisco took custody of Sanchez, it dropped that stale drug charge, and within two weeks he was released to the streets. Streets he wandered because he knew he was "safe" in the Sanctuary City. Streets he wandered until he found a gun and took a life.

****

The Committee did hear from other witnesses, including the Directors of ICE and the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, as well as representatives from the nonprofit community. These voices might have been appropriate in another setting. Candidly, in the company of family statements of such sorrow and wreckage, in which they were given, they were entirely out of place. In fact, ICE Director Sarah Saldana's statement was particular out of tune. She began by expressing a truism that need not have been said:

The men and women of ICE, me included, have families and children of our own and cannot help but empathize with those in search of a better life.

On the occasion of her testimony and remarks, remarks that passed briefly only on the death of Kathryn Steinle and made no mention of the deaths of Josh Wilkerson, Dennis McCann, Deputy Danny Oliver, or Grant Ronnebeck at all, her ability to empathize with those who yearn to live in America, some of whom so crave that life that they break our laws regarding admission to the country has never been in doubt. What we do doubt, and the doubt her remarks did not resolve, was whether she could empathize with the Steinles, the Wilkersons, the McCanns, the Olivers, and the Ronnebecks.

City of Refuge Sheriff: Obama at Fault for Death of Kathryn Steinle

Oh, heavens no, the Sheriff of San Francisco did not actually say, "This is all Obama's fault." The Sheriff conducted a press briefing yesterday to push back against federal fingers pointing at the Sheriff's Office for the release of accused murdered Francisco Sanchez. Many of the fingers pointing at the Sheriff seem not to take into account the fact that the Obama administration turned Sanchez over to San Francisco because it discovered an old, really old, stale, marijuana warrant from 1995. So, in defending his part in the indefensible circumstances that led to Sanchez shooting Kathryn Steinle, the Sheriff rightly pointed to Obama's Department of Homeland Security.

Sheriff Mirkarimi said, ICE "did not provide the Sheriff's Department with a warrant or a judicial order to hold him for proceedings." The Sheriff, of course, professed every intention to obey lawful orders while respecting the constitutional rights of the illegal immigrant felon, Francisco Sanchez. He explained, "Had ICE sought the requested legal order or warrant, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department naturally and will always comply and would have complied if that legal order or warrant would have been presented to us."

But is there any difference in him saying, as he did, that ICE failed to provide the appropriate documents to insure that Sanchez was returned to ICE custody, and Sheriff Mirkarimi saying, "the Obama administration failed to provide the appropriate documents to insure that Sanchez was returned to ICE custody"?

The truth is, from the beginning to the end, this ugly affair has the hallmarks of an Obama administration program.

First, it involves mishandled weapons. Think Operation Fast and Furious, a DOJ/BATFE Operation designed to track the flow of weapons to Mexican cartels, one result of which was that weapons sold in the US to straw purchasers ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and weapons ended up being used to kill American law enforcement agents and Mexican civilians, including children.Mr. Sanchez having apparently claimed that he found a gun in the trash, a belonging to a federal agent. It had previously been reported stolen from his vehicle.

Second, there is the matter of how Mr. Sanchez came to be turned over the the City and County of San(ctuary) Francisco. As the Sheriff confirmed in his press conference, the City and County DID NOT PURSUE Mr. Sanchez in the hands of the federal government. Instead, as Sanchez's sentence for illegal entry was coming to an end, and his forced repatriation to Mexico was impending, ICE officials discovered a STALE warrant, dated back to 1995, for possession and sale of MARIJUANA. ICE contacted San Francisco, and then caused Sanchez to be turned over to the Sheriff for further processing.

Once Sanchez was in their custody, Sanctuary City San Francisco proceeded with startling speed. He was delivered to the Sheriff on March 25, 2015. On March 26, 2015, Sanchez appeared in court where all charges were dropped. Two weeks later, ICE having not provided the kind of documents to Sanctuary City San Francisco that ICE knew it would require (a court order, or an appropriate warrant), San Francisco released Sanchez.

Pretend away all you want. The Department of Homeland Security failed utterly here. DHS's ICE agency knew that Sanctuary Cities, like San Francisco, objected to ICE's practice of issuing detainer notices for suspects in custody. Right or wrong, Sanctuary Cities have determined that they will require ICE to comply with what the Sanctuary Cities consider to be appropriate, constitutional, due process of law. By its knowledge of their practices, the actions of ICE turning illegals over to Sanctuary Cities' officials "as a courtesy" so that outstanding state and local warrants can be satisfied, make ICE culpable for the evident disregard for public safety embodied in Sanctuary Cities' practices.

ICE should discontinue extending courtesies to defiant communities.

Congress should discontinue funding of related programs in Sanctuary Cities until those cities agree to comply with ICE detainers.

And we all should discomfit the administration for its disregard of public safety, DHS and IHS for its coddling of illegals with multiple felony convictions, and Sanctuary Cities for their refusal to secure their communities from these obvious dangers.

OPINION: ICE Did Not Want Killer of Kathryn Steinle Deported So Giving Him to San Francisco Suited Its Purposes

Be very careful how you hear what you hear. Even on Fox News, where the preferred candidate is not, I think, Donald Trump. Do not let them, or anyone, give you the impression that the federal government is innocent of the blood of Kathryn Steinle.

Remember this fact: ICE turned Sanchez over to the SF Sheriff KNOWING that SF declared itself a Sanctuary City 26 years ago, that SF declared non-cooperation with ICE detainers 26 years ago, and that, when ICE turned Sanchez over to SF, it was for possible prosecution for a marijuana charge.

Ask yourself, if ICE had Sanchez, and if Sanchez was DUE TO BE DEPORTED yet again, and ICE turned Sanchez over to SF for prosecution of a very old marijuana related charge (with high likelihood that SF would choose not to prosecute such charge), what was ICE actually doing?

Think.

Even if it hurts, think.

Sanchez was, according to news reports, "ready" to be deported. Instead, ICE delivered him to the city authorities in a declared Sanctuary City. They did not deport him.

Come on.

You can do it.

YES! YOU'RE RIGHT!

The federal government, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, were avoiding the deportation of a convicted felon DELIBERATELY. Rather than deport him, they transferred him to a city that they KNEW would likely (a) not prosecute him and (b) not comply with its detainer request but, instead, release him.

Heads should roll. In San Francisco. In Washington, DC.

City of Refuge, or City of Sitting Ducks?

It has been TWENTY-SIX years since the City and County of San Francisco declared itself a "Sanctuary" City, a City and County of Refuge.

It has been TWENTY-SIX years since the City and County of San Francisco ENACTED AN ORDINANCE DECLARING that it would not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), declaring that San Francisco, not the government of the United States, would determine the policy to be followed regarding the treatment of undocumented aliens, including ones previously convicted of violent felonies.

It has been TWENTY-SIX years since the City and County of San Francisco TOLD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that its laws, its rules, its requirements were irrelevant.

Now, Kathryn Steinle is dead. And perhaps we would not even know her name, but for the unhappy coincidence of the timing of her execution while on an afternoon stroll with her father as Donald Trump was being lambasted for remarks about the sad reality that many many undocumented aliens entering the USA from Mexico are not GOOD PEOPLE, but EVIL, CRIMINAL PEOPLE.

Trump's prescience and candor doesn't mean you or I should vote for him. It does mean, however, that every "harrumphing" fool who tosses down pretense to offense at Trump's remarks must be made to feel the discomfort of answering for Steinle's murder. They must not be allowed to soften the blows to themselves by referring to Steinle's death as "senseless" or "random."

Steinle's death makes perfect sense. The curve of policy and practice, the criminal history of the accused, these things made what happened the day Steinle died predictable, and, by the way, avoidable.

A man commits MULTIPLE felonies, and has the convictions for seven of them to prove it. That man is DEPORTED five times, but is again in the USA. What? In the USA after having been excluded FIVE TIME?

Do not forget these points. The ICE folks at DHS KNOW his record. They have his record. They see his record. They know that he has pending charges in San Francisco. AS A COURTESY, ICE delivers the alleged killer to San Francisco, and places a detainer request with the San Francisco Sheriff's Office.

WAIT. WHAT?

The San Francisco Sheriff's Office is part of the City and County of San Francisco. That is the same entity that TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO declared itself a CITY AND COUNTY OF REFUGE. That is the same entity that TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO declared as a matter of policy that IT WOULD NOT HONOR such detainer requests. ICE KNEW, at the time when it transferred Francisco Sanchez to San Francisco's Sheriff's Department along with a detainer request THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAD A POLICY OF NON-COOPERATION. Yet ICE still delivered him into the Sheriff's hands, the hands that would not protect Steinle, the hands that are stained with her blood.

Nothing about this incident was UNAVOIDABLE.

Nothing about this incident was UNPREDICTABLE.

If you LIVE in a City of Refuge, or a Sanctuary City, you live in place that has declared itself above the Constitution, above the law of the land. That doesn't, however, equate with converting the place where you live into a safer, a more beautiful, a more kind, or a more gentle place.  As the death of Kathryn Steinle teaches us, it simply means that you are in a place where a dangerous person, with an established and lengthy criminal record, will nonetheless be released by your city officials as a defiant taunt against federal requirements for how to handle undocumented aliens.

If you are the governing officials of such cities, you are, yourself, a criminal. Your city's defiant declaration to disregard the constitutional role of the Congress in establishing immigration and naturalization policies shows that this is the case. Feel self-righteous and smug? I guess, that's understandable. You've blinded yourself to the blood of victims like Kathryn Steinle.

If you are an official of ICE, please, do not pretend that you do not bear responsibility for these kinds of mayhem. You know which are the Cities of Refuge, the Sanctuary Cities. When you KNOW that these cities choose to lawlessly defy the policy of the Congress established in our immigration and naturalization statutes, and extend courtesies of any kind to them, you bear responsibility too.

And, as I explained here yesterday, if you are a member of the United States Congress, you are on notice of this problem. You have the means to bring appropriate pressure to bear on Cities of Refuge that receive federal funds simply by conditioning the receipt of federal funds on cooperation with ICE Detainer requests.

If you are a citizen, if you are a person of good will, even a person who, as I do, knows that many undocumented aliens in the United States are not criminals, are not filled with disregard for life and limb of others, you too have a responsibility. Speak and act. Speak out against the unlawful practices of Cities of Refuge, such as the one exposed by the murder of Kathryn Steinle. Speak out against the carelessness and disregard for life and safety reflected in acts of "courtesy" by ICE that result in the release of dangerous criminals into the hands of law enforcement officials in Cities of Refuge. And demand that Congress bring financial pressure to bear on Cities of Refuge so that the safety of each and all is enhanced.

Kathryn Steinle: Sad Death in a City of Refuge and How Congress Can Address the Failure of CoRs to Protect The Public

The City and County of San Francisco sacrificed one of its newer residents last week as part of its on-going flaunting of US immigration laws. Across the Nation, as we learned the identity of the accused shooter of Kathryn Steinle, we felt the anger burning in our minds and hearts. How is it possible that the City's Sheriff's Department released a convicted (seven times), felon on the thin excuse that ICE detainer requests are "not legal?" How is it possible, in the first instance, that ICE surrendered the accused to the Sheriff "as a courtesy" so that the City could prosecute him on outstanding warrants, knowing as ICE did that the Sheriff's Department would NOT honor ICE detainer requests?

Much of this Kafkaesque insanity derives from the City and County of San Francisco suffering under a delusion. Its delusion is that it is responsible for the determination of United States immigration and naturalization policy. Under the US Constitution, however, the City and County of San Francisco has no power to determine immigration and naturalization law. Only the United States Congress, pursuant to Article I of the Constitution, has the power to make such law.

The City and County of San Francisco may view its status as a matter of high principle. In fact, here is what the City says about its City and County of Refuge status:

In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance) which prohibits City employees from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration investigations or arrests unless such help is required by federal or state law or a warrant. The Ordinance is rooted in the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980's, when churches across the country provided refuge to Central Americans fleeing civil wars in their countries. In providing such assistance, faith communities were responding to the difficulties immigrants faced in obtaining refugee status from the U.S. government. Municipalities across the country followed suit by adopting sanctuary ordinances.

In recent years, the Sanctuary Movement has experienced a rebirth, as grassroots organizations, faith communities, and local government have stood firmly against repressive immigration proposals in Congress and immigration raids that separate families. In February 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom reaffirmed San Francisco's commitment to immigrant communities by issuing an Executive Order that called on City departments to develop protocol and training on the Sanctuary Ordinance. 

So San Francisco adopted its City and County of Refuge Ordinance. Its ordinance quite directly declared the City's refusal to cooperate with federal law enforcement. San Francisco's neat principle comes with a price, and Kathryn Steinle appears now to be the latest known victim of San Francisco's "principled" stand.

Before government officials begin spinning their lines, YOU NEED TO KNOW that THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS CAN DO about American cities that choose to sacrifice the lives of American citizens in the name of "Sanctuary." Congress can CONDITION THE RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDS on COMPLIANCE by program recipients with ICE detainer requests.

The Congress has the SPENDING CLAUSE power to coerce Cities of Sanctuary to comply with detainer requests or forgo federal funds. 

Understand, I am not saying that Congress can, or should, simply enact a law demanding that Cities, Counties and States provide that cooperation. Such unfunded mandates offend important federalism principles. Rather, I am saying that Congress can require that cooperation of cities, counties and States as a condition of the receipt of federal program funds by them.

On several occasions, the Supreme Court has confirmed that Congress can condition the receipt of federal funds on compliance with federal program requirements. For example, back in the late 1970s, Congress conditioned receipt by the States of a portion of highway funding on their raising the legal drinking age to 21 years. South Dakota complained that the funding condition violated the 21st Amendment. [The 21st Amendment, ending Prohibition, gave plenary power over the sale and distribution of alcohol to the States.] In South Dakota v. Dole, affirming the constitutionality of the requirement and the program, the Supreme Court explained the interplay of the Spending Clause power and such federal program requirements:

The Constitution empowers Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." []. Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power "to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." []. The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler, [], where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined that "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields," [], may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.

The spending power is of course not unlimited, [], but is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare." []. In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress. [] Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation." [] . Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." []. Finally, we have noted that other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. [].

South Dakota v. Dole.

Essentially, South Dakota v. Dole (and other Supreme Court cases) confirm that the Constitution allows Congress to pursue policy goals by a "carrot and stick" approach. In South Dakota, the Court recognized that the goal Congress sought to achieve was to raise the legal drinking age across the Nation to improve safety. The "carrot" was a portion of reserved federal highway funding; the "stick" was the loss of that portion of funds by States that would refuse to bring their legal drinking age limit into compliance with federal policy.

To be clear, as South Dakota makes clear, Congress cannot tie just any carrot to just any stick. In other words, "conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated 'to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.'" In South Dakota, the connection between drinking age, driver licensing, and highway funding was sufficient to permit Congress to apply that carrot and stick.

So what can Congress do in response to the murder of Kathryn Steinle?

Congress can condition the receipt of relevant funding on actual cooperation of program recipients with requirements designed to serve policy goals identified by Congress. In South Dakota v. Dole, receipt of a portion of highway funds depended on raising drinking ages as desired by Congress. More recently, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebellius, the first Supreme Court case about Obamacare, the Court actually rejected a portion of the Obamacare statute that conditioned receipt of ANY MEDICAID FUNDING BY STATES with States' agreement to expand Medicaid programs as proposed the Act. Chief Justice Roberts concluded that COMPLETE DENIAL OF MEDICAID FUNDS to States was too big a stick, and that the proper stick might have been to limit MEDICAID funding to pre-Obamacare levels. [Most will recall this case for a separate holding by the Court sustaining the constitutionality of the "Individual Mandate" on the ground that the mandate was a tax, not a penalty.]

Congress can identify the funds appropriated in relation to immigration, naturalization, law enforcement, community policing, and justice programs. Then, Congress can condition receipt of a relevant portion of funds (not necessarily all, Congress would have to make that decision, as a matter of policy, and in keeping with the Supreme Court's decisions on the subject). Having forecast how the money it appropriates will be distributed and for what purposes, Congress would need only to impose as a condition of receipt of the funds a requirement of cooperation with ICE detainer requests as a condition on the receipt of funds.

How would this impact the City and County of San Francisco? Well, of course, that depends on the size of the carrot and the size of the stick. Here is what we know for sure. San Francisco receives a relatively princely sum from the federal government.The City and County of San Francisco receives about a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS in federal funding annually. But that is only about 5% of the City's general funds each year.

http://sfcontroller.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4497

Perhaps not all of that $250,000,000.00 in federal funds would be affected by a congressional "carrot and stick." Perhaps it would. That determination belongs to Congress, guided by an understanding that the Supreme Court does give such programs a careful review to insure that relevant Tenth Amendment interests are preserved, and that Congress has not overstepped.

But, had Congress the will to do so, it could invite San Francisco and other federal grantees to respect our Constitutional order, and to give place to national policy over its own preferences about immigration and naturalization. Whether Congress will act, of course, remains to be seen.