Will Newsom Stand Up To the Feds? History Says No!

By Mario Solis Marich


The weak retreat of Senate Democrats on immigration this week has a direct impact on California. Because of the flip-flopping U.S. Senate California Dreamers are finding themselves with an uncertain future. We soon may find that undocumented children and their families are solely dependent on leadership in Sacramento for their security. The election of California's governor this November is now more serious than ever and has national repercussions. California will almost surely elect a Democrat for Governor so it’s voters must make sure it is one with backbone.

The three leading gubernatorial contenders, Chiang, Villaraigosa, and Newsom have all had opportunities to demonstrate their commitment to immigrant communities and of the three only Newsom has come up short. Woefully short.

When in 2003 Newsom was elected Mayor San Francisco had already long codified needed boundaries between local law enforcement, that depends on consistently building community trust, and federal immigration authorities, that take their cues from the ever-changing winds that blow through the weak-willed minds of the Washington D.C. establishment.

In 2008 Newsom was faced with what he claims he determined to be a policy dilemma and what his critics say he saw as a craven political opportunity. The city’s “refugee city” policy limited local police from cooperating with immigration agents except in the instances in which an adult immigrant was charged with a felony. Policies were then adopted that would allow minors accused of felonies judicial due process in the U.S. and saved from deportation.

In 2008 a high profile crime came to public attention that involved a juvenile accused felon who went on as an adult to murder three victims. Reacting to the media reports Newsom decided that he would change the city’s policy so that minors solely accused of felonies would be treated as adults and immediately turned over to the federal government.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors responded by passing an ordinance that clearly prohibited the local juvenile justice system from handing minors over to federal agents based only on an accusation which the golden boy mayor quickly vetoed. The Board of Supervisors then overrode the veto but the obstinate Newsom refused to implement the new juvenile protecting policy.

Newsom’s response to the Supervisors vote on the sanctuary city ordinance is what is most troubling and should be of concern all Californians. In his veto message, Newsom stated that it was against the law for city officials to refuse to provide information to federal authorities.

We have in Gavin Newsom a man who is running to lead the Resistance State who does not believe in California's right to resist When the chips were not even down Newsom deferred to federal immigration authorities supremacy over local resources. We must ask: how would Newsom respond under real legal and political pressure?

Newsom’s political posturing on immigration was not without victims. In 2010 a 13-year boy was charged with felony extortion for punching a classmate and robbing him of 46 cents. Under Newsom’s capitulation policy the boy and his mother were both deported.

If Newsom cannot stand up to his own misguided political instincts in the liberal enclave of San Francisco how can he be trusted to stand up to the Trump/Sessions apparatus? Democrats have enough weak politicians in Washington D.C. do we need one leading the resistance?


Mario Wire