Daily Kos

San Francisco Reaches Out to Immigrants

Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM PDT

The city of San Francisco has started an advertising push with a very specific target market: illegal immigrants. And while the advertisements will come in a bundle of languages — English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese — they all carry the same message: you are safe here.

In what may be the first such campaign of its kind, the city plans to publish multilanguage brochures and fill the airwaves with advertisements relaying assurance that San Francisco will not report them to federal immigration authorities.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the campaign was simply an amplification of a longstanding position of not cooperating with immigration raids or other enforcement. The city passed a so-called sanctuary ordinance in 1989.

Still, Mr. Newsom said, it never hurts to advertise. "It’s one thing to have a policy on paper," he said. "It’s another to communicate it directly to people who could be impacted."

The television and radio campaign will tell immigrants they have "safe access" to public services, including schools, health clinics and — perhaps most importantly — the police, something that local law enforcement officials say is a chronic problem in émigré communities.

"It is a trademark of a criminal predator to convince victims that because of the victims’ immigration status that they — not the predator — will be treated as the criminal," said Kamala Harris, the city’s district attorney. "We want to remove that tool from the criminal’s tool belt."

Ms. Harris said particular problems in immigrant communities include human trafficking, fraud and elder abuse, which she said was widely underreported.

San Francisco is not alone in its sanctuary status; New York, Detroit and Washington have policies that discourage the police from enforcing immigration law. Nevertheless, the campaign’s announcement prompted a round of eye-rolling among anti-immigration forces in California and Washington, many of whom are still galled by the city’s 2007 decision to grant identification cards to anyone who could prove residence, regardless of legal status.

"I guess it’s what you expect from San Francisco," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington, which lobbies for stronger immigration enforcement. "But now, not only are they helping people break the law of the federal government, they are advertising it. I don’t know of any other city actually looking for illegal immigrants."

Rick Oltman, national media director for Californians for Population Stabilization in Santa Barbara, said the campaign could actually be a boon for other Bay Area cities if it drew illegal immigrants out of those communities and into San Francisco.

"The only people who are the losers here are the people of San Francisco who are going to hate the way the city looks in two or five years, when the illegal immigrant population grows massively," said Mr. Oltman, who said such populations had a negative effect on crime, education, health and the environment.

But Mr. Newsom said his advertising campaign was less a hard sell than a hard look at the reality of immigration policy.

"We’re not arguing against common-sense reforms," he said. "We’re not arguing against reforms at all. But in lieu of that, we’re doing the best we can to say if they see a crime report it, and if they have a child educate them."

Poll

Do you think San Francisco law not cooperating with federal immigration raids or other enforcement is a good law?

60%27 votes
40%18 votes

| 45 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: San Francisco Reaches Out to Immigrants (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 12 comments

  •  This Is Great News, I Can't Wait To See (0+ / 0-)

    Dobbs and O'Reilly this week. Their heads are going to explode. This is going to be good TV viewing.

    Let us not forget New Orleans. Visit Project Katrina.

    by webranding on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM PDT

  •  Civil disobedience is always a tool.. (0+ / 0-)

    we could use to resist unjust laws. I live in San Francisco and my neighbor was deported late last year. He was nabbed by the Feds during a raid at a job site, he worked for a construction company. His wife and son were left behind. Anybody think that's fair?

    Lies, Torture and the American Way! (My Apologies to Superman)

    by Darksyde888 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM PDT

  •  I wish Newsom would mention Housing Abuse of (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Darksyde888, mariachi mama

    legal and undocumented immigrants.  He won't because he only wants to protect folks for a limited distance, but unjust and illegal housing activities on the part of landlords is rampant here in SF.

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:39:50 PM PDT

  •  I disagree with it (0+ / 0-)

    They don't belong here and have no legal right to be here. This is one issue that really bothers me. Why even have immigration law if people here will argue that they shouldn't be enforced and that undocumented immigrants should receive special rights?

    •  Why is it (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Darksyde888

      when people want to be treated fairly and equally, they are accused of wanting "special rights?"

      In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. Ben Franklin

      by nokkonwud on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:17:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  do you disagree (0+ / 0-)

      with the pragmatic reason given:

      "It is a trademark of a criminal predator to convince victims that because of the victims’ immigration status that they — not the predator — will be treated as the criminal," said Kamala Harris, the city’s district attorney. "We want to remove that tool from the criminal’s tool belt."

      Frankly, if the Feds fail to enforce a sane policy at the border, why should local police clean up after them instead of dealing with local problems as appropriately?

  •  mostly agree, but I'd frame it differently (0+ / 0-)

    I realize some of the political reasons to frame it like this, but IMO it's usually not a good idea to make stronger arguments than necessary to justify a policy. In this case, it's not necessary to use the "sanctuary" language or oppose enforcement of immigration laws in general. Rather, San Francisco could simply leave immigration laws to the federal government (as they're doing), and argue that at a local level their job is to deal with everyone physically present in the city so as to keep everyone safe and well off.

    In particular, it is in everyone's interest that all people physically present in the city (including illegal immigrants) feel safe going to things like immunization clinics, because disease pandemics don't really discriminate based on citizenship status. So it would be a bad idea to make people scared of, say, the city health authorities, even if you thought they should be deported.

    "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

    by Delirium on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM PDT

  •  I believe that any immigrant here that is an (0+ / 0-)

    otherwise law-abiding citizen should be treated with respect and dignity.

    It concerns me, however, that there seems to be a serious increase of violent crimes by offenders, that could be held on immigration violations, when they are let out on bail free to prey upon innocent victims.

    blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

    by browneyes on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM PDT

Permalink | 12 comments