When it comes to San Francisco’s sanctuary city laws, the convoluted “Due Process for All” ordinance makes it all but impossible for even violent, career felons like Milton Ramos-Rodriguez to be deported. The ordinance authorizes the sheriff to honor federal detainer requests for in-custody felons on a second offense for violent felonies committed in the past seven years and serious felonies committed in the past five years. While the city says it withdraws sanctuary protections for those crimes, it only happens when federal immigration officers ask and the accused felon is in custody by court order or held to answer.
Ironically, it was Matt Dorsey, considered to be the most moderate “law and order” member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who pointed me to it as his reason for supporting due process even for illegal immigrants accused of the most heinous criminal acts. In February 2023, Dorsey, a recovering drug addict himself, proposed legislation that would “create a new exception to San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies for adults who have been convicted of a fentanyl-dealing felony in the prior seven years and then held to answer for another fentanyl-dealing felony, a violent felony, or a serious felony subsequently.” Only board president and District 8 supervisor Rafael Mandelman supported Dorsey’s proposal, meaning the other 10 supervisors rejected deporting drug dealers who kill an average of two people a day in San Francisco.
Even had it passed, the measure would have been largely performative, just like the rest of the “exempt crimes,” which include murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, and sex offender registration offenses. I say it’s performative because San Francisco does not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That means if illegal immigrants are held on murder charges, the only way they face deportation is if federal agents are aware they are in custody. And Due Process for All has made that even more absurd.
Due Process for All was a separate measure from the original 1989 “City and County of Refuge” Sanctuary Ordinance, which prohibited San Francisco from using its resources to assist federal immigration enforcement. While “moderate” supervisors say they fully support it, the ordinance came from the most far left and socialist members of the board at the time. On March 22, 2016, Due Process for All was sponsored by John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and Aaron Peskin; it was passed by the Board of Supervisors on June 7, 2016, and enacted on June 17, 2016.
There has long been a smug progressive tinge to San Francisco’s leadership that continues even under “moderate mayor” Daniel Lurie. While the mayor and board have a problem using city funds to help federal immigration officers arrest and deport violent career criminals, they don’t have a problem spending millions to defend them. Still, Lurie talks tough out both sides of his mouth on issues like public safety and illegal immigration. That double-talk was on full display when he opened his speech before the Board with how upsetting the arrest of Ramos-Rodriguez was for him and “members of the immigrant community” — who are most often the victims of dangerous felons and domestic abusers like Ramos-Rodriguez — and then moved into the rest of his speech, which included his support for women sexual assault victims and assurance that he had “taken action, holding drug dealers accountable.” It doesn’t take a public defender to tell you that’s a lie, and the only drug dealers facing deportation are those tried federally.
With the mayor’s speech and Ramos-Rodriguez’s long, violent criminal history in mind, I reached out to the mayor’s press office on Wednesday, Oct. 21 and asked the following three questions:
1. In light of these revelations, does Mayor Lurie believe violent felons like Ramos-Rodriguez should be protected by sanctuary city laws?
2. Does Mayor Lurie believe violent felons in this city illegally should receive free legal defense, and does he support the money he mentioned in his speech yesterday going to defend Ramos-Rodriguez?
3. Does Mayor Lurie support ICE removing Ramos-Rodriguez from the country in light of his violent criminal history and deportation orders from 2017?
Press Secretary and Senior Communications Advisor Charles Lutvak responded, “The mayor has said he supports the city’s sanctuary ordinance. Very clear. He has never said anything about the individual you’re asking about. I’d appreciate if you would represent his comments accurately. Thanks.”
I reached out again: “All of this was in reference to Ramos-Rodriguez .… I am asking the mayor and board members if they believe violent felons here illegally (Ramos received a final order of deportation in 2017) should be covered under sanctuary laws.”
Again, Lutvak was evasive. “Here is what he said at BOS yesterday: ‘I want to start by addressing that we continue to see disturbing scenes of federal immigration enforcement targeting San Franciscans. It’s upsetting for members of our immigrant community and for me personally. I want to thank Supervisor Fielder for her leadership in this moment, and I’m proud to support the funding proposed today.’ That doesn’t address a specific incident or reference the public defender. I would just ask that you represent his comments accurately.”
When I asked Lutvak a third time to have the mayor answer directly — even simplifying my already straightforward questions and condensing them from three into two — he simply stopped responding. For a mayor who promised to be transparent, Lurie is in fact the least transparent mayor I’ve dealt with in two decades, including his notoriously press averse predecessor, London Breed.
As for the supervisors, only two responded — Matt Dorsey and Stephen Sherrill. Despite sending follow-ups to each of their colleagues, crickets. I have worked as a reporter with Alameda County and the City of San Jose, where my questions were answered promptly and professionally (in the case of San Jose, Mayor Matt Mahan reached out personally). Comparing those experiences, San Francisco City Hall is like a clown car full of mimes.
Dorsey, whom I’ve worked with as a journalist since his days at the city attorney’s office, is always willing to offer a quote when asked. On Oct. 21, the morning of Ramos-Rodriguez’s arrest, he put out a statement on social media which read in part: “I am outraged by the video showing an armed federal agent confronting a man who repeatedly identified himself as a U.S. citizen in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood this morning.”
When I pointed out that Ramos-Rodriguez was not a citizen and, in fact, had a final order of deportation from 2017, Dorsey said, ‘I stand by my statement because the tactics employed by ICE agents showcase a lack of professionalism and training that we would expect to see from our own police department, and frankly *any* law enforcement agency that’s better trained and better prepared to do this work than ICE is under this administration [.…] Even if we accept that the person apprehended deserves to be — and I *do* accept that — the conduct and comportment of these federal law enforcement officers leaves a lot to be desired. It undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement, and I say that as a leader who is generally very supportive of law enforcement.”
Sherrill was more direct. When I asked him if he believed violent felons like Ramos-Rodriguez should be deported, he said, “Of course, I think violent felons should be deported.”
When I asked why he attended Fielder’s rally, he explained, “I was there for the broader cause. I didn’t even know who this guy [Ramos-Rodriguez] was. Supervisor Fielder told us the rally was about the mayor giving more money to defend immigrants and I support that. Everyone deserves due process. That’s where I stand.”
Read my investigation into Milton Ramos-Rodriguez here.
