Campos seeks $5 million to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation

Measure is first test of SF's commitment to Sanctuary City policies

A proposal by Supervisor David Campos to spend $5 million to provide legal representation to immigrants living in the country without documentation who face deportation is the first test of the city’s commitment to its Sanctuary City policy.

Sup. David Campos is moving to make the city defend its immigrants
Sup. David Campos is moving to make the city defend its immigrants

Half of the money would go to the Public Defenders office to hire more immigration lawyers.

Fears within immigrant communities have heightened since Donald Trump became president, given his repeated statements about deporting immigrants.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi has been in the forefront with Campos along with other immigration lawyers to work toward a legal solution. Campos said he is hopeful they’d be able to bring forward a legislation which he hopes to table to the board by December 13th his last meeting as a supervisor before he’s termed out. 

In an interview with the news show “60 Minutes,” the President elect said that he will go after two or three million undocumented immigrants who are convicted felons. Experts say that number is exaggerated. 

Perhaps even more worrying is the president-elect’s statement that Sanctuary Cities will be stripped of federal funding should they refuse to corporate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. In San Francisco’s case it risks losing up to $1 Billion.  

“This is part and parcel of being a sanctuary city, making sure we are prepared for what we know is coming, what the president-elect has said is coming,” said Campos, as he recalled entering country illegally with his family from Guatemala, but is now a U.S. citizen.

“You can’t on the one hand say you’re going to defend sanctuary and then on the other hand not take concrete steps to make that happen.”

If the supes and the mayor can’t find the $5 million for this, it will be a bad sign as the city moves into the Trump Era.

  • Don Sebastopol

    I would rather the City not spend money defending criminal illegal aliens. We have many other uses for that money.

  • Sanchez Resident

    Would Supervisor Campos be able to apply for a position with the Public Defender’s office after his term as Supervisor ends? If so, is that a conflict of interest?

  • chris12bb

    This is a good idea, but just as it looks like we will loose some Federal Funds and the budget is being examined for cuts. We add this may be at least let the Trump administration do it stuff then tackle this issue?

  • Kraus

    Campos is a lawyer — Harvard Law and Stanford; both on full scholarship.
    He should feel free to represent anyone he likes — pro bono.
    But not with taxpayer money.

    • Do Something Nice

      Maybe you should consider living in a city that is more aligned with your right-wing views.

      SF is going to break you.

      • Kraus

        I’d much rather spend any spare $5 Million we might have on permanent supportive housing for the currently homeless. Its part of my “right-wing” agenda.

        • Don Sebastopol

          Or maybe spend it on relocation assistance to areas where people can find jobs or more affordable housing.

  • LKR1

    Not a good idea. You have on one side “Hell”= Donald Trump, and “Fear” the progressives(lack of a better term) that lost power. In the middle is the PEOPLE. Wait and see…chill.

  • NoeValleyJim

    Here Here Supervisor Campos, this is one of your ideas that I can get 100% behind. During these dark times we must support the most vulnerable amongst us.

    • Don Sebastopol

      In some cases the most vulnerable are the victims of criminal illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are subject to being deported but that is not the same thing as the most vulnerable among us.

  • passager_clandestin

    I sincerely hope President Trump goes ahead with his promise to cut funding to sanctuary cities. This is a policy that most American reject, and should not have to pay for. I am also eager to see this city make some hard decisions about where to spend the many billions in its budget.

  • 4th Gen SF

    This will take away $ from MUNI, seniors, etc. This is not a good idea. And SF is ground zero because of what happened to Kate Steinle, which, conveniently, Tim never talks about. Or the Bologna Family who was also murdered right here in SF. These are the reasons Americans, even Americans in SF (10k I think) voted for Trump.

    • Don Sebastopol

      There are precincts on the West side where it was as high as 25% for Trump and Trump did not campaign here.

      • Do Something Nice

        Good. Build a wall around them.

        • Don Sebastopol

          Or we could deport the Trump voters. The only problem with that is we would be deporting tax payers and keeping welfare recipients or others who benefit from government handouts.

          • Do Something Nice

            Yeah, the wealthy pay their fare share of taxes. Hardly ever.

          • 4th Gen SF

            I’m not in disagreement, but I think what needs to change is the tax code for superwealthy people. For instance, Tom Steyer of the South Bay spent $155m on Hillary’s campaign. That $ could have been given instead, to Flint, MI to pay directly for clean water for the residents of Flint. Flint needs to be fixed first. These billionaires need to put their $ THERE, and also take care of homeless vets, homeless Americans, feed people.

          • Don Sebastopol

            The top 1% pays 37.8% of the taxes and the 1-5% pay 20.74%. The wealthy pay 57% of the taxes. That seems me more than a fair share.

            I would guess Trump voters pay 80% of the taxes and 80% of Hillary voters don’t pay taxes. Those who benefit from government voted for Hillary.

          • Do Something Nice

            You guess? You know you are full of shit, right? Your prejudices are reflected in your invented statistics.

          • Don Sebastopol

            It would be interesting to see if my guess has any basis in fact. 45% of households don’t pay federal tax. I am assuming the majority of them voted for Hillary. The richest 20% paid 87% of the taxes. I am assuming most of them voted for Trump. The percentage of Americans relying on government for part or all of their subsistence is 49.5% of the American population; most voted for Hillary? And of course most government employees would have voted for Hillary. There is nothing wrong with voting your pocket book.

          • Do Something Nice

            “There is nothing wrong with voting your pocket book.”

            Yes, voting for Hitler because ‘my pocketbook’ was morally right.

          • Don Sebastopol

            Voting for Hillary was not the same thing as voting for Hitler. Even though when in Arkansas she supported the confederate flag, had a mentor who was a KKK leader, and praised a senator who was opposed to the civil rights act, does not make her a racist or anything like Hitler.

          • Do Something Nice

            Whoosh.

            What are you babbling about? Oh, I see. 40 years ago, if I am to believe your drivel, Clinton had different opinions than she has now, so she is worse than Trump, who hasn’t changed a bit – he’s still is a racist.

            As are you.

          • Don Sebastopol

            They left Arkansas a little over 20 years ago. Trump is not a racist. Nor is Hillary.

      • 4th Gen SF

        I agree. And there was a high vote for Trump in the Black communities, in general, not recorded by “polls”! I think 30% in reality. 🙂