You have to hand it to San Francisco. It’s not easy to double down on a policy that’s earning you ridicule from people who normally wouldn’t even agree on what color the sky was. Yet, that’s exactly what they did when they voted to keep their sanctuary city status.
The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution which not only backed the existing sanctuary policy but specifically rejected participating in the Obama administration’s new Priority Enforcement Program, which was designed to entice at least some cooperation from reluctant counties.
Everyone from the city’s former mayor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, to GOP presidential hopeful Donald J. Trump had called for the policy to be rescinded in the wake of the July 1 death of Kathryn Steinle. An illegal immigrant who’d been deported five times and had been released into the community by San Francisco, ignoring a request he be turned over for deportation, has admitted to killing her — though he says it was an accident.
We’re sure the fact that it was an accident will make Steinle’s family feel so much better.
PEP is planning to try and encourage certain behavior, which can work in some cases. However, sanctuary cities like San Francisco aren’t likely to be swayed by an approach like this. An alternate idea was more of a “stick” to PEP’s “carrot.” Frankly, that would probably have worked just as well. Sanctuary cities would simply take it as a symbol of pride that they continued to make the stand.
However, perhaps this is a case where both sides may actually be partially right.
Merging an incentive to comply with penalties for non-compliance may be just the spur to the sides sanctuary cities need to switch positions.