by Francisco Ugarte
No topic is more important to President Donald Trump’s political agenda than immigration. And since July 1, 2015, he has used one case – the tragic death of Kathryn Steinle – as his sounding board to demonize immigrants, call for mass deportation, and demand an end to “sanctuary” policies which limit the role of local and state governments in enforcing immigration laws.
And now, Trump is urging passage of legislation that would turn local police departments into a federal deportation force. Trump regularly invokes the name of Ms. Steinle as justification for this legislation.
Steinle, a young woman in the prime of her life, tragically died when hit by a ricocheted bullet while walking along San Francisco’s Pier 14, a popular tourist destination. Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who had been released from criminal custody in San Francisco several months earlier, is accused of causing Ms. Steinle’s death.
From the beginning, Trump seized on Lopez Sanchez’s immigration status as the motivating factor that caused Ms. Steinle’s death. To this day, President Trump wants us to believe, against statistical evidence, that increased deportation will protect public safety. It is time to set the record straight.
Trump is urging passage of legislation that would turn local police departments into a federal deportation force.
Let’s start with sanctuary. No public policy has been more misunderstood, thanks to unending xenophopic rants spewed in the right wing media. Contrary to the vitriol, sanctuary policies are public 
safety tools for law enforcement.
President Trump wants us to believe, against statistical evidence, that increased deportation will protect public safety. It is time to set the record straight.
The goal of a sanctuary policy is to encourage undocumented people to report crimes without fear of deportation. Virtually every head of every major U.S. police department supports disentangling local police from immigration enforcement. The Houston and Dallas police chiefs recently wrote that police inquiry into immigration status “will lead to distrust of police and less cooperation from members of the community.”
While no study has calculated the total number of crimes solved by sanctuary policies – several studies, including one from the Journal of Law and Economics, have found no correlation between public safety and increased deportation. There is little dispute that immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens. And, the Center of American Progress found that sanctuary jurisdictions are actually safer than those without sanctuary policies.
The goal of a sanctuary policy is to encourage undocumented people to report crimes without fear of deportation.
Trump’s anti-sanctuary argument falls further apart with a closer examination of the case against Mr. Lopez-Sanchez. As evidence unfolds, it is becoming increasingly clear that Ms. Steinle’s death, albeit indescribably tragic, was the result of an unintentional and accidental firearm discharge. Lopez Sanchez found a heavy object wrapped in a T-shirt on Pier 14, and as he unwrapped it, the weapon discharged, he told ABC News.
Few believed him at first – especially when Donald Trump was vilifying him as an “illegal immigrant” murderer – but forensic evidence supports Lopez Sanchez. The gun was pointed at the ground at the time it discharged. The bullet ricocheted off concrete, travelling 100 feet before it struck Ms. Steinle. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239, was stolen from a federal agent who kept it in a backpack under a seat in his car – violating a host of federal safety regulations.
Lopez Sanchez is not accused of stealing the weapon. Lopez Sanchez has no prior convictions for theft or violence. Though he spent considerable time in prison, his lengthy sentences were for immigration violations – namely, illegal reentry after a deportation order – a crime which can carry 20 years of imprisonment.
In other words, President Trump has manipulated a tragic accident to justify ending sanctuary policies and call for mass deportation of the undocumented.
President Trump has manipulated a tragic accident to justify ending sanctuary policies and call for mass deportation of the undocumented.
Edward R. Murrow, a journalist attacked by the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, declared, “We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.” Let’s take Murrow’s advice. Sanctuary policies make our communities safer, not more dangerous. Let’s not turn Trump’s xenophobic false narratives into public policy.
Sanctuary policies make our communities safer, not more dangerous. Let’s not turn Trump’s xenophobic false narratives into public policy.
Francisco Ugarte is the managing attorney of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Immigrant Defense Unit. He is one of the attorneys representing Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.
Exploiting a tragedy for political purposes is pretty much par for the course for this president. The man is shameless and will say anything, no matter how false or illogical, if it supports his political agenda. In fact, undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than the general population. So, we should encourage illegal immigration to lower the overall crime rate. Makes sense? Of course not–but when was that ever a consideration in the age of Trump?
Who was it that stated “never let a serious crisis go to waste”? Oh, that’s right, Democrat Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s right hand man.
That has what to do with this story?
Just offering a little balance to a biased comment and article.
Let’s not kid ourselves, both sides do it.
“undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than the general population” This is often stated but seems to have no basis in fact. Many papers have been published but the most often cited is the Kristin F. Butcher, Anne Morrison Piehl paper. So many issues I will only address a few here:
Almost all the source data was drawn from the 1970’s and 1980’s even if the paper was published significantly later. Clearly the immigrant population has changed.
Do illegal immigrants report crime at the same rate as citizens or legal residents? I find it hard to believe that this could be true.
The “winnowing effect”. Convicted citizens and many legal residents are released after conviction while illegal immigrants are often departed after conviction. To have an accurate comparison we would need to exile citizens and legal residents who committed crimes that would be deport-able offenses for illegal immigrants or otherwise subtract them from the total. This is a classic incidence/prevalence problem.
I never believe the immigrants perform less crimes claim either.
Please explain that if they do less crime how come our federal jails are about one third full of illegals even though they only represent @ 3% of the population?
Maybe because half of the federal arrests are immigration related?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/immigration-offenses-make-up-a-growing-share-of-federal-arrests/
Most of the papers on this subject are clearly junk but it does not prevent people from posting statements they would like to be true.
Note also that if you say they Kathy Steinle was murdered David will get all twitterpated and post on how that has this not been proven. However he has published several recent articles stating that she was shot “accidentally” though that has not been proven either. But that is acceptable to him as it fits his political view.
“Maybe because half of the federal arrests are immigration related?”
If Sessions starts making marijuana arrests this could change dramatically.
Correct. And only a small percentage of incarcerated persons are in federal prisons.
“only a small percentage of incarcerated persons are in federal prisons”
NYC used to have “federal day” where regular felonies would be processed by the feds and people would end up in a federal prison for the same offense that a day earlier they would have gone to state for. I don’t think they do that anymore.
“Note also that if you say they Kathy Steinle was murdered David will get all twitterpated and post on how that has this not been proven. However he has published several recent articles stating that she was shot “accidentally” though that has not been proven either. But that is acceptable to him as it fits his political view.”
You’ve left out the context of that discussion. You said that he was guilty, I said that there has not been a trial and the defense maintains it was an accidental shooting. So we’ll see.
“If Sessions starts making marijuana arrests this could change dramatically.”
Seems questionable at this point
What about the current administration is not “questionable”? Except that tweets will continue.
Fair point
And what about the current Democrat party is not “questionable? Except that their deranged hatred for Trump will continue.
“Let’s start with sanctuary. No public policy has been more misunderstood, thanks to unending xenophopic rants spewed in the right wing media.”
Let’s start with this: What is San Francisco’s Sanctuary City Policy?
I wonder what the narrative would have been from both sides had their situations been reversed. Let’s suppose that a white woman citizen, claimed that in lifting up an unknown object she had inadvertently caused the death of an undocumented Latino male. Would candidate Trump have made it a signature case for gun safety ? Would he have called on the NRA and all gun owners to immediately secure their weapons in a safe manner or turn them in if that were too onerous ? Or would he and his supporters have been more likely to blame the victim who would not have been killed if he had not been here in the first place ?
What about the ACLU ? Would they have been portraying this as a hate crime or representing the family of the deceased who were now without the contribution of this family member. Just wondering what you all think.