Sanctuary-City Policy Advocacy and the Production of Sanctuary-Power in San Francisco, California
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
In the Spirit of Sanctuary: Sanctuary-City Policy Advocacy and the Production of Sanctuary-Power in San Francisco, California By Peter Mancina Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In Anthropology August, 2016 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Date: _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ Edward F. Fischer, Ph.D. _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ Lesley Gill, Ph.D. _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ John Janusek, Ph.D. _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________ Katharine M. Donato, Ph.D. To my loving partner Zina, my daughters Bea and Evla, and my parents Mike and Maureen ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the financial support of the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Dissertation Fieldwork Grant, or the Vanderbilt College of Arts and Sciences Social Science Dissertation Fellowship. This work would also not have been possible without the support of my dissertation committee members Dr. Lesley Gill, Dr. Katharine Donato, and Dr. John Janusek. I am especially indebted to my committee Chair Dr. Edward F. Fischer who has been an endless source of encouragement, support, and guidance in completing this dissertation. Not only did Dr. Fischer help train me, open academic doors for me prior to the research, and encourage me to publish preliminary portions of this dissertation, but he always trusted in my judgment to explore entirely new lines of research which ultimately led to the unforeseen focus of this study. For that, I will always be grateful. I would also not have been able to complete this dissertation without the encouragement, friendship, and advice of Kathleen Coll, and the kindness of Els de Grauuw in helping connect me to certain individuals in City Hall. Thank you to Norbert Ross and George and Jane Collier for reading drafts of my research design proposal prior to beginning the study and to Randy Lippert and Sean Rehaag for helping significantly in reading and providing editorial feedback for initial versions of Chapter 2, “Birth of a Sanctuary City”. Many thanks are due to The Graduate Theological Union Archives, the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael, Chris Doan and the Presentation Sisters of San Francisco, the San Francisco Archdiocese Archives, El Tecolote, the University of San Francisco Library, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, the San Francisco Public Library History Department, and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco for allowing me to consult their archival collections. Special thanks are also due to sanctuary movement organizers Eileen Purcell, Lana Dalberg, Ignatius Bau, Judy Liteky, and Sister Kathleen Healy for not only providing me with personal documents from the sanctuary movement of the 1980s but also for explaining to me the history of the San Francisco sanctuary movement and their work to create sanctuary city policies. Also, thanks are due to Revered Debbie Lee of the San Francisco Interfaith Coalition on Immigration for inviting me to her coalition meetings where I was able to connect with the faith community and with contacts in San Francisco City Hall. I am forever grateful for the help of San Francisco District Supervisor David Campos and his legislative aides Sheila Chung Hagan and Hillary Ronen. Their supervision of my work as an intern, their explanation of sanctuary city issues and the municipal system, and their willingness to open doors for me was crucial for my ability to understand how municipal sanctuary city practices and municipal deportation practices are created and maintained. Also large thanks are due to District Supervisor John Avalos, and his legislative aides Frances Hsieh, Jeremy Pollack, and Raquel Redondiez who allowed me to participate in the sanctuary city iii policy-making process, and to Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Patti Lee for explaining the intricacies of the juvenile justice system. This dissertation is in great debt to individuals at the San Francisco Human Rights Commission for explaining to me the process of sanctuary violation investigations and the role of the Commission with regard to sanctuary. In particular, I owe a special thanks to Executive Director Theresa Sparks, Commissioner Michael Pappas, Zoë Polk, Sheryl Cowan, and Taraneh Moayed. Thanks are also due to Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs Director Adrienne Pon and Commissioner Felix Fuentes. Director Pon was very kind to facilitate setting up meetings for me with various department heads. I owe a special thanks to Police Chief Greg Suhr for allowing me to attend community police academy courses and to do ride-alongs with Mission Station police officers. Huge thanks are due to the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee (SFIRDC) for allowing me to accompany and assist them in the grassroots campaign to pass sanctuary city policy. Coalition members provided crucial perspectives on sanctuary city policies, endless inspiration, and the opportunity to witness what it takes for a community to confront the federal deportation apparatus through the legislative process. A special thanks to Reverend Richard Smith who at a protest at the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement building first invited me to attend meetings with an organizing committee of a SFIRDC coalition member, the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP). At that SFOP meeting, SFOP organizers gave me a community-organizing role in the campaign to pass the sanctuary-inspired TRUST Act in California and subsequently vouched for me to participate in the closed strategy meetings of the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee. However, the biggest thanks go to Angela Chan, who invited me to SFIRDC meetings, largely guided my organizing and research work in the coalition, and answered an innumerable amount of questions I had about the coalition’s various campaigns to legislate sanctuary city policy. The dissertation would also not have been completed without the help of coalition member Renee Saucedo, who gave me a volunteer job and brought me into the organizational meetings of the San Francisco Day Labor Program and La Colectiva de Mujeres, both SFIRDC member organizations. Finally, this dissertation greatly benefited from the attention of Zina Bozzay, Angela Chan, Francisco Ugarte, and Jon Rodney who read initial drafts and provided very helpful feedback. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………… iii LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………… x LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, NOMENCLATURE, AND SYMBOLS………………………… xii Chapter 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Sanctuary-Power and Governmental Practice ……………………………………… 5 The Study of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Practice……………………………. 8 Seeing Like a Sanctuary City: The Anthropology of the State and Policy.. 22 Organization of the Dissertation …………………………………………………………… 29 2. The Birth of a Sanctuary City: Governmental Sanctuary in San Francisco From 1980-1990 …………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 San Francisco Political Economy and Immigrant Workers…………………… 35 The San Francisco Sanctuary Movement and the Cultivation of Sanctuary as an Ethic of Municipal Governance …………………….…………….. 37 The Responsibilities of Sanctuary Movement Refugee Sponsors……. 41 Governmentalizing Sanctuary: The City of Refuge Resolution of 1985….. 44 Institutionalizing Governmental Sanctuary: The 1989 Sanctuary City Ordinance…………………………………………………………………………..…………………. 51 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 57 3. “Securing” the Sanctuary City to Safeguard Funding: Sanctuary City Reforms from 1991-2004 ……………………………………………………………………... 58 Introduction ………………………………..……………………………………………………….. 58 Sanctuary and the Threat of Losing Federal Funds for Policing: 1992 and 1993 Sanctuary Ordinance Amendments ………………………………………. 59 Accessing the Sanctuary City in the Age of Proposition 187, 1994-2000………………………………………………………………………………………………74 Governmental Sanctuary in the Age of Homeland Security, 2001-2004... Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………..…... 88 v 4. Departmentalizing Sanctuary…………………………………………………….………….. 90 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………. 90 The Era of Increased ICE Raids …………………………………………………………. 91 Funding the Sanctuary City …………………………………………………………………… 97 The Sanctuary City Initiative ……………………………………………………………… 101 Department-Specific Sanctuary Protocol Development ……………….. 110 Training City Employees in the New Policies………………………………… 119 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130 5. The Sanctuary City Picks a Sacrificial Lamb: The Executive Branch’s Attack on Undocumented Juveniles…………………………………………………….. 131 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………...…………….. 131 Processing Undocumented Youth in the Juvenile Justice System….……....134 Stopping the Juvenile Probation’s International Family Reunification Practice ……………………………………………………………………………………..……….. 145 The Executive Branch Sacrifices the Children to Save the Sanctuary City……………………………………..………………………………………………..150