The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, in concert with its elected sheriff, has opted to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in nearly all criminal cases involving individuals living here illegally.
It’s a sea change from the county’s posture of routine compliance only a few years ago. This decade has become a new world here. The question then becomes: Are the county’s residents, both properly documented and not, better protected now as a result of this ultra-restrictive policy?
The answer: We don’t know. In fact, it seems quite likely that we may not know. That’s because county policymakers, for a variety of reasons, are not privy to important information regarding undocumented ex-convicts released into the community in a regular, timely, proactive fashion.
If some undocumented individuals re-offend (or do so multiple times) after being set free after serving their time incarcerated, the only clear-cut mechanism to bring their status into the open for examination is a judge’s arrest warrant, according to a county ordinance approved, 4-1, by the supervisors last week, with Ray Mueller casting the lone no vote. And there is even some question about that.
For the most part, the supervisors will be operating in the dark. There will be no mandated transparency, no upfront system to analyze and digest whether the setup is working to the benefit of all of the county’s residents, here both legal and illegal. The ordinance is notably mute on that important subject.
That means the taxpaying public would be unaware as well if the sheriff does not, or cannot, present periodic updates regarding the effectiveness of the ordinance in a regular, clear, comprehensive way.
In essence, as a number of speakers described it last week during that contentious, often vitriol-laden meeting, we have become a sanctuary county along the same lines as San Francisco, Santa Clara and Los Angeles.
Under the county’s ordinance, Sheriff Christina Corpus, who is devotedly foursquare in favor of the new ordinance and its unseen ramifications, cannot make a reporting exception (to immigration officials or anyone else) involving undocumented residents charged with such heinous crimes as murder, rape and child molestation as Mueller had proposed unsuccessfully.
So the safety question now comes to the forefront with some urgency.
During last week’s meeting, board President Dave Pine said, as far as he knows, the county, which has been operating with less restrictive protocol for the last several years, has not experienced “any adverse effects as far as I’m aware.” But is he certain? Apparently, we are going forward on hope alone.
In an earlier email, he made it clear that the sheriff does not, and cannot, inquire about a suspect’s immigration status (regardless of his or her criminal history as an ex-convict). Which means getting accurate data about a re-offending undocumented individual, if any, would be virtually impossible.
What’s more, the new, tougher rules limiting county cooperation with immigration authorities to an even more stringent level increase the potential for mistakes in the realm of public safety by definition.
Learning about those possible errors, whether egregious or not, on a scheduled, public basis appears to be off the table.
Let us all hope and pray that a tragedy, which might have been prevented, does not ensue to bring this situation front and center as a result.
Of course, if one does occur, we may not know the full story anyway.
COUNTY DA HAS REMAINED SILENT: The divisive issue of San Mateo County’s relationship with federal immigration enforcement personnel and the question of public safety has permeated more than one agency at the county’s sprawling government complex in downtown Redwood City for weeks, if not months.
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Office have been particularly affected by the debate. But the county’s top law enforcement officer, the district attorney, has been notably quiet.
Steve Wagstaffe has chosen not to take a public position one way or the other on the rules. Asked why, he said the matter is not within his official purview as he perceives it.
In effect, state and county regulations tie his hands no matter what his personal (and private) views on the subject might be.
(10) comments
Public records obtained by the I-Team found that between 2018 and 2021 there were at least five immigrants convicted of sex crimes and another charged with pimping that were transferred from San Mateo County to ICE. There were at least 39 people transferred to ICE during these years that were convicted of serious felonies ranging from child molestation, child abuse, rape, kidnapping, grand theft, elder theft, assault, burglary, robbery, and arson.
Supervisor Canepa denied our request to discuss these data points. But we asked him before the meeting about a study published by the Dept. of Justice that examined 191 child molesters 15 to 30 years after their release from a Canadian prison. The research found child molesters with previous sexual offenses had the highest recidivism rate.
Stephanie Sierra: "Does that change your answer?"
David Canepa: "No. Look, Stephanie. That's not going to change my mind."
LInk to ABC news clip, https://abc7news.com/san-mateo-county-board-of-supervisors-immigration-ordinance-immigrant-crime-bay-area-asylum-seekers/13213284/
The ordinance is nothing but virtue signaling by a group of well-organized advocates. It will have no effect. If other Federal Law Enforcement agencies are involved, they generally cooperate and collaborate with other and will involve ICE if appropriate.
This ordinance codifies the policy set out by former Sheriff Bolanos in November 2021, so the policy is not new. What is new is that it is now a local ordinance rather than just a departmental policy.
Yes, we are joining the ranks of other sanctuary cities and counties, and I applaud it. Immigrants do not have higher crime rates than non-immigrants and in fact there is research showing their crime rate os lower.
Let's not point the finger at people who moved here for a better life and for a chance at the American dream. All of us, including the one-third of us who live in the county who moved here from another country, want to live in peace and have safety for our community.
Our justice system is set up to allow second chances; people are sentenced, do their time, and come back to the community. We need equal treatment no matter where we were born. We need to also make sure that our undocumented neighbors have access to resources to keep them safe, including jobs, rehab, and counseling.
It seems like you put zero effort into research on the topic. Numerous studies have shown that protecting immigrant community members protects the community. By passing this ordinance, SMC joins municipalities across the state and country that are committed to being welcoming place for all - one where immigrant families stay together and residents can access services without fear of discrimination or deportation.
In an ICE cooperating county victims of crimes cannot access the police when they themselves or members of their family are undocumented. It makes them easy targets for crime. And it makes all of us less safe when a segment of the community lives in fear of any cooperation or contact with law enforcement.
Westy, your assertions about immigrants are valid, as long as you don’t conflate legal immigrants with illegal. Immigrants can choose to stay together and they never have to fear deportation - because they’re legally in America. The ones that illegally cross the border – not so much, and rightly so… BTW, there’s no evidence there’s a decrease in reporting crimes due to status. That emotional talking point is not supported by data.
Should we deport reoffending citizens too? Or is that punishment only reserved for our immigrant community?
Not a bad idea. Australia was founded by that ilk.
Here we go again… jhc – please don’t conflate legal immigrants with illegal – it undermines your argument. If they’re citizens, we may “deport” them to other states, if they’ve offended there, too. Deportation is reserved for “immigrants” who illegally cross the border, making them criminals. The fact that these folks have “reoffended” in America makes it ever more important to deport them.
So much for informing the public… Perhaps we need more whistleblowers? Perhaps we need a few (more?) lawsuits? Perhaps we need ICE on speed dial? Perhaps we need four new supervisors? Actually, no “perhaps” there, we do need new supervisors - those who believe in law and order. Meanwhile, all you can do for your family is to ensure they’re protected by whatever means you decide is necessary. Good luck to us.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.