The Hill, July 20, 2015, by David Leopold
Kathryn Steinle’s tragic murder in San Francisco, allegedly by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national who entered the country illegally, has understandably led to many questions. But Republican politicians—from Donald Trump to Rep. Steve King (Iowa)—are largely focusing on the wrong ones.
They are cynically seizing upon Kathryn Steinle’s murder to malign San Francisco’s so-called “Sanctuary City” policy, and all immigrants in the bargain. They are driving the narrative that Lopez-Sanchez fled to San Francisco because he wanted to avoid deportation. This is not only wrong on the facts—Lopez-Sanchez did not “flee” to San Francisco, he was brought there in handcuffs—but it fails to hold the federal Bureau of Prisons officials accountable for releasing him to the San Francisco Sheriff’s authorities, without determining whether the county prosecutor intended to follow through on the old drug warrant. And it fails to hold ICE responsible for not trying harder to deport Sanchez-Lopez the moment they had the opportunity.
So, in the first two paragraphs, let's check the lies: First, Lopez-Sanchez is not "allegedly" the killer of Kathryn Steinle, he confessed during an interview with a television reporter to the murder. He even said he was sorry. No allegedly about it, he is the killer. Second lie, this by misdirection, Leopold suggests that San Francisco is not a sanctuary city by placing quotation marks around it, suggesting that the fact that San Francisco is a sanctuary city is not true. However, San Francisco is quite open about its Sanctuary City policy, it is on their website.
Next Leopold claims that the killer, Lopez-Sanchez, did not flee to the sanctuary city of San Francisco, but was brought there. True enough, but Lopez-Sanchez stated publicly that he remained in San Francisco because of the sanctuary city policies. In any event, no one says he fled to San Francisco, all agree he remained because of San Francisco's very real sanctuary policies. So, Leopold clearly is lying in order to misdirect the public.
Leopold then asks a series of related and repative questions on why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not make Lopez-Sanchez a deportation priority and why did they not communicate that priority to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Under existing Obama administration enforcement guidelines, Lopez-Sanchez should have been a top priority. Why wasn’t he treated as such?
Why did the federal Bureau of Prisons release Sanchez-Lopez to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department in March 2015, instead of sending him to ICE, which had reportedly requested him?
Did the federal bureaucracy, including BOP and ICE, communicate with each other about Sanchez-Lopez? If not, why not?
Following his 2011 conviction for illegal re-entry, Lopez-Sanchez was ordered to be sent to a “federal medical facility as soon as possible.” Was he? Did he receive mental health support?
Why didn’t BOP or ICE take the time to consider whether the San Francisco County Prosecutor would actually follow through on the 20 year-old drug warrant before releasing him from Federal custody—knowing full well that it’s far easier to deport someone when they are in your grasp than when they are not?
Why weren’t federal law enforcement authorities all over Sanchez-Lopez as his prison release date approached in March of this year? After all, he is the poster-villain for why American needs fair and smart enforcement of its immigration laws. Given Lopez-Sanchez’s twenty-year record of disrespecting the law, and 16 year and ½ month stint in Federal prison, you would think that deporting him as soon as possible would have been a priority.
The strategy here is to imply that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the BOP were either negligent or indifferent to Lopez-Sanchez. In fact, Leopold seems more concerned that Lopez-Sanchez wasn't getting psychiatric care than over the death of Steinle.
But here is the truth about how Lopez-Sanchez was processed as his federal prison sentence for violation of Title 8 United States Code, Section 1326, Re-entry After Deportation proceeded:
When a Federal prisoner's sentence approaches the time for release, the BOP examines his record, including any outstanding warrants and detainers from the ICE. In this case, Lopez-Sanchez had both a detainer from ICE and an outstanding arrest warrant from the City and County of San Francisco. As part of the pre-release procedure, the BOP ran Lopez-Sanchez in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), a computer database of, among other records, outstanding arrest warrants. There was a record of an outstanding arrest warrant for Lopez-Sanchez. By policy, an agency that has access and uses NCIC must adhere to NCIC's rules. One of those rules is that if an agency runs a subject's name and has custody of that person, it must inquire with the agency that has an arrest warrant record to determine if that agency, in this case the San Francisco Sheriff's Department (SFSD), will extradite. This is called in NCIC parlance a "hit confirmation." In this case, the SFSD confirmed the warrant and requested extradition. This is important, as participating agencies in NCIC are required to honor such requests and it is a matter of policy that the BOP honors State and local arrest warrants, as does ICE, even over deportation orders.
So, in fact, the SFSD had a valid arrest warrant for Lopez-Sanchez, and the BOP and ICE honored the request that Lopez-Sanchez be extradited to San Francisco. So, the sly smear and intimation that the BOP and ICE were responsible for Lopez-Sanchez' release are flagrant lies designed to mislead the public, common enough for the Treason Bar.
Leopold's next major lie follows, he implies that deporting criminals is a new policy and that Republicans oppose deporting criminal aliens because they opposed the Rubio Amnesty legislation and the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty:
As a felon who illegally reentered the U.S. he was likely under a final order of removal. If standard removal order reinstatement procedure was followed after his arrest on the federal illegal reentry charge there was no need to go to an immigration judge for a deportation order. It was already in place, waiting to be implemented. And the deportation of Sanchez-Lopez would have been in line with the Department of Homeland Security’s stated enforcement policies, which prioritize the deportation of people who are convicted of multiple, serious felonies.
Ironically, these are the very same deportation guidelines that Republicans in Congress have opposed. It’s no wonder they don’t want to draw attention to that fact and the truth about this case—because they actually, honestly oppose prioritizing enforcement on the worst of the worst. Instead, they want to send immigration agents out after anyone and everyone...
Republicans claim to be tough on criminals, but they oppose the Obama administration’s deportation priorities and oppose comprehensive immigration reform, which would have increased enforcement while dealing smartly with immigrants who are threats to no one.
There is nothing in the Rubio Amnesty legislation or the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty that would have mandated deportation of criminal aliens. In fact, the Obama Regime is running an amnesty for criminal aliens as well as for previously deported aliens, of which Lopez-Sanchez belonged to both groups.
Interestingly Leopold even admits to the ongoing amnesty for previous deportees:
Of course, not everyone who has a prior deportation on his record should be an enforcement priority.
But for the Treason Bar, there are no aliens who should be deported, unless they are an embarrassment to the Treason Bar, like Lopez-Sanchez. In fact, the Obama Regime is continuing to release criminal aliens like Lopez-Sanchez in record numbers and the number of deported criminal aliens is down 23%. So far as lies go, there are lies, damned lies, and the Treason Bar public statements.