Which has more “humane” policies on immigration: San Francisco or Arizona? Well, consider their very different approaches:
San Francisco declared itself a “sanctuary city,” meaning it would not generally report illegal aliens to federal immigration authorities when they were stopped by police for other reasons. But in 2008, an illegal alien was accused of murdering a father and his two sons in San Francisco when their car briefly blocked his vehicle.
As it turns out, the suspect had committed felony attempted robbery and assault as a juvenile, but the city’s “sanctuary” status had protected him from being turned over to immigration officials and deported. So if he is in fact the killer of the innocent man and his two sons, they might be alive if San Francisco had not had its supposedly “humane” policy of offering illegal aliens sanctuary.
Arizona, by contrast, recently enacted a law under which police in the state will question people if they have reason to believe the individuals are in the country illegally. Police will undergo training on what constitutes “reasonable suspicion,” to guard against reckless questioning of Arizona residents based strictly on their race.
Arizona’s law will prevent the type of tragedy that occurred in San Francisco in 2008 and that has played out across the nation in so many horrible crimes. Yet San Francisco officials have condemned the Arizona law and say the city should not do business there.
Sadly, San Francisco is in no position to give lectures on how to craft wise immigration laws.