Should San Francisco mayor Ed Lee be arrested or at the very least recalled?

[boedicca]

Ed Lee is just a tool. The entire city is dysfunctional: city counsel, bureaucracy, police department, sheriff's department, school system....

A recall would just be a distraction. The real issue is Obama's insane and damaging policy of open borders and non-enforcement of immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities would still be a seditious problem, but without Obama's open borders, they wouldn't be hosting repeat deportees.

Considering that Ed Lee has already been re-elected and that the majority of San Franciscans have supported Sanctuary City status- a recall not only would be a distraction- it would go nowhere.

Sheriff Mirkarini (sp)- he is more likely to lose his job over this.

As far as everything else in San Francisco- we are in shock about this horrible murder- but the city is functioning just fine.

Lights are on, buses are running, tourists are swarming into the city- biggest problem we have is too many people wanting to live in San Francisco.

As someone who frequently does business in and socializes with friends in San Francisco, I find the city to be in general a pit. The numerous homeless people cause it to stink of urine and feces. The city planning is abominable. Traffic is a nightmare. Parking is inadequate. And the tech hipsters are obnoxious. There are still many wonderful things about the city, but I don't see it as functioning just fine.

Well then you haven't seen much of the City.

We do have lots of homeless people- concentrated largely in a few areas. In my neighborhood we have one. I would love to end the homeless problem- but so far no one has come up with a winning solution.

City planning is pretty good- all things considered- I like the building that is going on South of Market and passed the ball park- speaking of which- been to AT&T Park? Fantastic place- we all love it.

Which city the size of San Francisco doesn't have 'traffic'? The reality is other than downtown, or at rush hour, traffic is pretty smooth. I can drive clear across town in 20 minutes.

Parking is inadequate- we have more cars than our city will really support. Build more parking garages? Where? So those of us who live here figure it out- we know where the parking garages are, and don't try to park on the street in China Town or North Beach.

The Tech hipsters are the latest wave of people coming to San Francisco- everyone has thought the newcomers are obnoxious. My only complaint is that they make tons of money and are driving up real estate prices- which most places would consider a good thing, but hard on average folks.

But the City continues to run just fine.

Like I said- our number one problem is we have TOO many people who want to live here.

Because San Francisco is just that cool.

I lived in San Francisco for a few years, and then moved out because I was sick of it.

The NUMBER ONE problem is the idiotic ideology of the most of the residents and their government.

 

[Syriusly]

Ed Lee is just a tool. The entire city is dysfunctional: city counsel, bureaucracy, police department, sheriff's department, school system....

A recall would just be a distraction. The real issue is Obama's insane and damaging policy of open borders and non-enforcement of immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities would still be a seditious problem, but without Obama's open borders, they wouldn't be hosting repeat deportees.

Considering that Ed Lee has already been re-elected and that the majority of San Franciscans have supported Sanctuary City status- a recall not only would be a distraction- it would go nowhere.

Sheriff Mirkarini (sp)- he is more likely to lose his job over this.

As far as everything else in San Francisco- we are in shock about this horrible murder- but the city is functioning just fine.

Lights are on, buses are running, tourists are swarming into the city- biggest problem we have is too many people wanting to live in San Francisco.

As someone who frequently does business in and socializes with friends in San Francisco, I find the city to be in general a pit. The numerous homeless people cause it to stink of urine and feces. The city planning is abominable. Traffic is a nightmare. Parking is inadequate. And the tech hipsters are obnoxious. There are still many wonderful things about the city, but I don't see it as functioning just fine.

Well then you haven't seen much of the City.

We do have lots of homeless people- concentrated largely in a few areas. In my neighborhood we have one. I would love to end the homeless problem- but so far no one has come up with a winning solution.

City planning is pretty good- all things considered- I like the building that is going on South of Market and passed the ball park- speaking of which- been to AT&T Park? Fantastic place- we all love it.

Which city the size of San Francisco doesn't have 'traffic'? The reality is other than downtown, or at rush hour, traffic is pretty smooth. I can drive clear across town in 20 minutes.

Parking is inadequate- we have more cars than our city will really support. Build more parking garages? Where? So those of us who live here figure it out- we know where the parking garages are, and don't try to park on the street in China Town or North Beach.

The Tech hipsters are the latest wave of people coming to San Francisco- everyone has thought the newcomers are obnoxious. My only complaint is that they make tons of money and are driving up real estate prices- which most places would consider a good thing, but hard on average folks.

But the City continues to run just fine.

Like I said- our number one problem is we have TOO many people who want to live here.

Because San Francisco is just that cool.

I've lived in San Francisco, and near it for most of my life, bub.

The NUMBER ONE problem is the idiotic ideology of the residents and their government.

Well your welcome to it.

I live in San Francisco and have lived in it- or near it- for about 90% of my life.

If you hate the ideology of the residents- then that is your problem, not ours.

Like I said- our major problem is too many people want to come here.

 

[boedicca]

Ed Lee is just a tool. The entire city is dysfunctional: city counsel, bureaucracy, police department, sheriff's department, school system....

A recall would just be a distraction. The real issue is Obama's insane and damaging policy of open borders and non-enforcement of immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities would still be a seditious problem, but without Obama's open borders, they wouldn't be hosting repeat deportees.

Considering that Ed Lee has already been re-elected and that the majority of San Franciscans have supported Sanctuary City status- a recall not only would be a distraction- it would go nowhere.

Sheriff Mirkarini (sp)- he is more likely to lose his job over this.

As far as everything else in San Francisco- we are in shock about this horrible murder- but the city is functioning just fine.

Lights are on, buses are running, tourists are swarming into the city- biggest problem we have is too many people wanting to live in San Francisco.

As someone who frequently does business in and socializes with friends in San Francisco, I find the city to be in general a pit. The numerous homeless people cause it to stink of urine and feces. The city planning is abominable. Traffic is a nightmare. Parking is inadequate. And the tech hipsters are obnoxious. There are still many wonderful things about the city, but I don't see it as functioning just fine.

Well then you haven't seen much of the City.

We do have lots of homeless people- concentrated largely in a few areas. In my neighborhood we have one. I would love to end the homeless problem- but so far no one has come up with a winning solution.

City planning is pretty good- all things considered- I like the building that is going on South of Market and passed the ball park- speaking of which- been to AT&T Park? Fantastic place- we all love it.

Which city the size of San Francisco doesn't have 'traffic'? The reality is other than downtown, or at rush hour, traffic is pretty smooth. I can drive clear across town in 20 minutes.

Parking is inadequate- we have more cars than our city will really support. Build more parking garages? Where? So those of us who live here figure it out- we know where the parking garages are, and don't try to park on the street in China Town or North Beach.

The Tech hipsters are the latest wave of people coming to San Francisco- everyone has thought the newcomers are obnoxious. My only complaint is that they make tons of money and are driving up real estate prices- which most places would consider a good thing, but hard on average folks.

But the City continues to run just fine.

Like I said- our number one problem is we have TOO many people who want to live here.

Because San Francisco is just that cool.

I've lived in San Francisco, and near it for most of my life, bub.

The NUMBER ONE problem is the idiotic ideology of the residents and their government.

Well your welcome to it.

I live in San Francisco and have lived in it- or near it- for about 90% of my life.

If you hate the ideology of the residents- then that is your problem, not ours.

Like I said- our major problem is too many people want to come here.

I can see that you are solidly in the echo chamber.

 

[OKTexas]

Bullshit, they mayor and city counsel made a conscious decision to release criminals back into their city when there was an alternative, that is depraved indifference and as such all of them should be charged with depraved indifference murder. Your BS comparisons don't rise to that level.

So...vote for someone else next election. We get the government we deserve because we get the government we elect. Incompetence or failures of public policy by elected officials is not criminal.

Actually when they violate the law and someone dies as a result of their actions it is criminal. Violating federal law is not part of their official responsibilities and they are culpable.

they didn't violate a law for the millionth time. A state can not obstruct the fed from enforcing immigration law but it IS NOT OBLIGATED to enforce the law for the federal government.

Title 8, Section 1373A of the United States Code

(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The San Fransisco city government prohibited their agencies from following federal law, they violated federal law by doing so.

Since ICE had the man in custody- and turned him over to San Francisco- what information did the City of San Francisco prohibit or restrict in this case?

ICE turned him over because of an outstanding felony warrant, the city was obligated to inform ICE they were not going to pursue charges, the sheriff plainly stated that notifying the feds he was being released would be a violation of policy, a illegal policy, as I have posted.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's not the mayor's fault. San Francisco, like Los Angeles, has been a sanctuary city for decades.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I remember the good ole days when Romney was blamed for killing someone and the left promoted that idiocy endlessly. I remember the good ole days when Bush was blamed for the Katrina deaths and the left yet again promoted that idocy.

Here we have a death as a direct result of ignoring federal law & a direct request from ICE but since dems are in control it is no big deal.

Actually I think that the death is a big deal.

As a citizen of San Francisco I think it was the result of a tragic screw up- and maybe of a very flawed policy. Right now everyone is trying to blame everyone else, but from what I have seen I think ultimately it will be that the Sheriff who is in charge of prisoners screwed up- and he should lose his job for it.

If the policy is to blame, then we should change the policy.

A reasonable position

 

[Syriusly]

Considering that Ed Lee has already been re-elected and that the majority of San Franciscans have supported Sanctuary City status- a recall not only would be a distraction- it would go nowhere.

Sheriff Mirkarini (sp)- he is more likely to lose his job over this.

As far as everything else in San Francisco- we are in shock about this horrible murder- but the city is functioning just fine.

Lights are on, buses are running, tourists are swarming into the city- biggest problem we have is too many people wanting to live in San Francisco.

As someone who frequently does business in and socializes with friends in San Francisco, I find the city to be in general a pit. The numerous homeless people cause it to stink of urine and feces. The city planning is abominable. Traffic is a nightmare. Parking is inadequate. And the tech hipsters are obnoxious. There are still many wonderful things about the city, but I don't see it as functioning just fine.

Well then you haven't seen much of the City.

We do have lots of homeless people- concentrated largely in a few areas. In my neighborhood we have one. I would love to end the homeless problem- but so far no one has come up with a winning solution.

City planning is pretty good- all things considered- I like the building that is going on South of Market and passed the ball park- speaking of which- been to AT&T Park? Fantastic place- we all love it.

Which city the size of San Francisco doesn't have 'traffic'? The reality is other than downtown, or at rush hour, traffic is pretty smooth. I can drive clear across town in 20 minutes.

Parking is inadequate- we have more cars than our city will really support. Build more parking garages? Where? So those of us who live here figure it out- we know where the parking garages are, and don't try to park on the street in China Town or North Beach.

The Tech hipsters are the latest wave of people coming to San Francisco- everyone has thought the newcomers are obnoxious. My only complaint is that they make tons of money and are driving up real estate prices- which most places would consider a good thing, but hard on average folks.

But the City continues to run just fine.

Like I said- our number one problem is we have TOO many people who want to live here.

Because San Francisco is just that cool.

I've lived in San Francisco, and near it for most of my life, bub.

The NUMBER ONE problem is the idiotic ideology of the residents and their government.

Well your welcome to it.

I live in San Francisco and have lived in it- or near it- for about 90% of my life.

If you hate the ideology of the residents- then that is your problem, not ours.

Like I said- our major problem is too many people want to come here.

I can see that you are solidly in the echo chamber.

You see whatever you want to see.

 

[boedicca]

So...vote for someone else next election. We get the government we deserve because we get the government we elect. Incompetence or failures of public policy by elected officials is not criminal.

Actually when they violate the law and someone dies as a result of their actions it is criminal. Violating federal law is not part of their official responsibilities and they are culpable.

they didn't violate a law for the millionth time. A state can not obstruct the fed from enforcing immigration law but it IS NOT OBLIGATED to enforce the law for the federal government.

Title 8, Section 1373A of the United States Code

(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The San Fransisco city government prohibited their agencies from following federal law, they violated federal law by doing so.

Since ICE had the man in custody- and turned him over to San Francisco- what information did the City of San Francisco prohibit or restrict in this case?

ICE turned him over because of an outstanding felony warrant, the city was obligated to inform ICE they were not going to pursue charges, the sheriff plainly stated that notifying the feds he was being released would be a violation of policy, a illegal policy, as I have posted.

Why on earth would ICE turn him over for a 20 year old pot violation in San Francisco. Any thinking person would know that the city would just let him go.

 

[SwimExpert]

I would love to end the homeless problem- but so far no one has come up with a winning solution.

If I may recommend a plan:

1) Ship out all the illegals by boat, anchor it 100 miles south of the US border at a Mexican harbor, and have crew abandon ship and leave the illegals for Mexico to deal with.

2) Use newly vacated housing units to house currently homeless individuals. Allow them to live rent free for one year. Provide each individual with a $500 Walmart gift card and six months food stamps.

3) Assess $1000 fine on all property owners who were renting to illegals. Program will be paid for with assessed fines, and saved costs of welfare consumed by illegals.

Homeless will have food, shelter, and spending money to get themselves shaved, washed, and clothed to go out on job interviews, where they can take over for the newly vacated positions caused by the elimination of illegal labor. Costs will be covered by reduction in costs from illegals, and fines and lost revenues of those contributing to illegals.

Presto-bam! Problem solved!

 

[Syriusly]

So...vote for someone else next election. We get the government we deserve because we get the government we elect. Incompetence or failures of public policy by elected officials is not criminal.

Actually when they violate the law and someone dies as a result of their actions it is criminal. Violating federal law is not part of their official responsibilities and they are culpable.

they didn't violate a law for the millionth time. A state can not obstruct the fed from enforcing immigration law but it IS NOT OBLIGATED to enforce the law for the federal government.

Title 8, Section 1373A of the United States Code

(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The San Fransisco city government prohibited their agencies from following federal law, they violated federal law by doing so.

Since ICE had the man in custody- and turned him over to San Francisco- what information did the City of San Francisco prohibit or restrict in this case?

ICE turned him over because of an outstanding felony warrant, the city was obligated to inform ICE they were not going to pursue charges, the sheriff plainly stated that notifying the feds he was being released would be a violation of policy, a illegal policy, as I have posted.

The law you cite says "with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual'

Doesn't say anything about information regarding non-immigration criminal charges.

That said- I still believe Mirikini probably screwed up- and should have notified ICE- but he didn't violate the law.

 

[Syriusly]

I would love to end the homeless problem- but so far no one has come up with a winning solution.

If I may recommend a plan:

1) Ship out all the illegals by boat, anchor it 100 miles south of the US border at a Mexican harbor, and have crew abandon ship and leave the illegals for Mexico to deal with.

Lets say the population of illegals is 10 million. Lets say you cram 500 on each 'boat'- so you would need only 20,000 boats.

Where are you getting the boats from- and why do you want to give Mexico 20,000 boats?

And do we start rescuing them after the first million die- or wait until 3 or 4 million die?

 

[SwimExpert]

Lets say the population of illegals is 10 million.

The entire population of San Fransisco is not even one million.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually when they violate the law and someone dies as a result of their actions it is criminal.

No, "criminal" is when a person violates a penal statute. You need to learn the difference.

Violating federal law is not part of their official responsibilities and they are culpable.

Where is the violation of federal law? Can you identify the statute? Of course you can't. The city has no obligation to partake in federal immigration enforcement. The mayor has no obligation to establish public policy that will aid, compliment, or endorse federal immigration enforcement.

Fake ass CINOs like you constantly claim to be supporters of state's rights and local governance, but you're really just fair-weather bullshitters. You talk a big game about state sovereignty and nullification when it comes to gay marriage and Obamacare. But when a city or state does something you don't like, you're suddenly up in arms about how they were supposed to do what you wanted them to, because OMGFEDERALLAW!

Sanctuary cities are a state and local issue. Such policies are the 100% the right of the cities and states in question, each having no obligation to enforce federal immigration policy. Personally, I think sanctuary cities are bullshit. But it is ultimately an issue for the people of that city to decide. True conservatives will support the right of local and state governments to lawfully rebuff federal immigration policies, even while hating that state/city's position on immigration policy.

Keep talking, I've already posted the law they violated, and depraved indifference is a criminal offense.

All you've posted is an administrative statute. And you can't actually demonstrate that the mayor failed to comply with it, or that any failure to comply can be directly attributable to the mayor. All you have going for you is a vague whine fest about how the state and city are not bowing down to the almighty federal government. You are doing exactly what liberals usually do with their "you can't say bomb on a plane" level reasoning for complaining about states exercising their rights in ways that are not in sync with federal government initiatives.

Actually I've already demonstrated the mayor blatantly violated the law by his words and deeds, he said he wouldn't turn illegals over to the feds, even known criminals and his policies prohibit city employees from doing so.

 

[sealybobo]

Sanctuary cities draw illegals in, anyone involved in the creation of such a designation have blood on their hands.

Mitt Romney has blood on his hands, Bush has blood on his hands, every illegal employer has blood on their hands. My mayor has blood on his hands, you have blood on your hands, I have blood on my hands.

Of course you and I don't have any power and we don't want illegals here so we have a lot less blood on our hands. But if you are a conservative who argued years ago they were doing "jobs Americans won't do", like John McCain said, then you have blood on your hands.

I was not arguing that at all !! I have always argued that if we got rid of all the illegals, wages would rise in those fields that provide jobs that Americans won't do.

I am neither pro or anti- illegal immigrant- they both do jobs that American employers cannot fill otherwise- and they also take jobs (especially construction) that Americans can and will do- and drive down competitive wages. That is the prime reason why Texas housing costs are so low- illegal construction labor is dirt cheap compared to the costs in other parts of the country.

Not to mention you have to house the illegals that you're paying low wages to. Sounds to me like you understand the situation and you're probably more against it I hope. They don't have to come in illegally. They could set up a system where they come in legally to only do those jobs Americans won't do but that would ruin it for the illegal employers who are hiring them for under the table wages. Jobs Americans won't do is b*******. We have a system setup here to where any employer can go outside the country if they cannot find an American worker to do the job. These people are hiring them to do a lot more than jobs Americans won't do. We just want to get paid a fair wage and the government wants their tax cut

 

[OKTexas]

Actually when they violate the law and someone dies as a result of their actions it is criminal. Violating federal law is not part of their official responsibilities and they are culpable.

they didn't violate a law for the millionth time. A state can not obstruct the fed from enforcing immigration law but it IS NOT OBLIGATED to enforce the law for the federal government.

Title 8, Section 1373A of the United States Code

(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The San Fransisco city government prohibited their agencies from following federal law, they violated federal law by doing so.

Since ICE had the man in custody- and turned him over to San Francisco- what information did the City of San Francisco prohibit or restrict in this case?

ICE turned him over because of an outstanding felony warrant, the city was obligated to inform ICE they were not going to pursue charges, the sheriff plainly stated that notifying the feds he was being released would be a violation of policy, a illegal policy, as I have posted.

Why on earth would ICE turn him over for a 20 year old pot violation in San Francisco. Any thinking person would know that the city would just let him go.

The city had a valid warrant, if the city wasn't going to prosecute him why didn't they revoke the warrant?

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually I've already demonstrated the mayor blatantly violated the law by his words and deeds, he said he wouldn't turn illegals over to the feds, even known criminals and his policies prohibit city employees from doing so.

So....don't vote for him. He's not committed any crime. He's done nothing which is an offense under law. Even if it were true that he can be attributed with the failure to comply with an administrative statute about sharing information (something you still can't demonstrate, you merely repeat the vague point that he won't turn over illegals to federal agencies), it's still not a crime. Don't like his policies, vote for someone else.

But wait...oh yeah, that's right! You don't live in San Fransisco. And yet, you want to control San Fransisco. You just hate the fact that the state and local government have the right to adopt policies that you don't like. Just another big government liberal....

 

[OKTexas]

Actually when they violate the law and someone dies as a result of their actions it is criminal. Violating federal law is not part of their official responsibilities and they are culpable.

they didn't violate a law for the millionth time. A state can not obstruct the fed from enforcing immigration law but it IS NOT OBLIGATED to enforce the law for the federal government.

Title 8, Section 1373A of the United States Code

(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The San Fransisco city government prohibited their agencies from following federal law, they violated federal law by doing so.

Since ICE had the man in custody- and turned him over to San Francisco- what information did the City of San Francisco prohibit or restrict in this case?

ICE turned him over because of an outstanding felony warrant, the city was obligated to inform ICE they were not going to pursue charges, the sheriff plainly stated that notifying the feds he was being released would be a violation of policy, a illegal policy, as I have posted.

The law you cite says "with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual'

Doesn't say anything about information regarding non-immigration criminal charges.

That said- I still believe Mirikini probably screwed up- and should have notified ICE- but he didn't violate the law.

We'll see if those arguments hold in a wrongful death suit. I don't think they will.

 

[Edgetho]

The law you cite says "with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual'

Doesn't say anything about information regarding non-immigration criminal charges.

That said- I still believe Mirikini probably screwed up- and should have notified ICE- but he didn't violate the law.

It wouldn't matter. With the dimocrap FILTH we have infesting the White House right now, nothing is going to get done about it anyway.

And please..... Spare me the crocodile tears. You don't give a fuck and neither does the rest of Sang Frang....... Except maybe for the people that knew that pretty girl.

You don't care and we all know it.

And because none of you care, nothing is going to be done about it.

It just isn't.

Oh, they'll send that beanerhead motherfucker to prison, but that's a Country Club to him. Three hots and a Cot, all the sex he can handle, no work to be done, clean clothes.......

Fuck dimocraps. I hate them all

 

[OKTexas]

Actually I've already demonstrated the mayor blatantly violated the law by his words and deeds, he said he wouldn't turn illegals over to the feds, even known criminals and his policies prohibit city employees from doing so.

So....don't vote for him. He's not committed any crime. He's done nothing which is an offense under law. Even if it were true that he can be attributed with the failure to comply with an administrative statute about sharing information (something you still can't demonstrate, you merely repeat the vague point that he won't turn over illegals to federal agencies), it's still not a crime. Don't like his policies, vote for someone else.

But wait...oh yeah, that's right! You don't live in San Fransisco. And yet, you want to control San Fransisco. You just hate the fact that the state and local government have the right to adopt policies that you don't like. Just another big government liberal....

Denial if the face of obvious facts, are you insane or senile?

 

[boedicca]

they didn't violate a law for the millionth time. A state can not obstruct the fed from enforcing immigration law but it IS NOT OBLIGATED to enforce the law for the federal government.

Title 8, Section 1373A of the United States Code

(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The San Fransisco city government prohibited their agencies from following federal law, they violated federal law by doing so.

Since ICE had the man in custody- and turned him over to San Francisco- what information did the City of San Francisco prohibit or restrict in this case?

ICE turned him over because of an outstanding felony warrant, the city was obligated to inform ICE they were not going to pursue charges, the sheriff plainly stated that notifying the feds he was being released would be a violation of policy, a illegal policy, as I have posted.

Why on earth would ICE turn him over for a 20 year old pot violation in San Francisco. Any thinking person would know that the city would just let him go.

The city had a valid warrant, if the city wasn't going to prosecute him why didn't they revoke the warrant?

I haven't seen that the city was actively seeking him under that warrant.