Sanctuary Silly

I've written before about San Francisco's deadly sanctuary city policies. Short version: the City Probation Department had was hiding juvenile illegal aliens who had been arrested and charged with crimes. The idea was to keep the little dears away from the deportation-happy feds. The probation office went as far as to fly some of these kids (all of whom were criminals) back to their home countries - at taxpayer expense! The inevitable happened and one of these poor victims of the Bush-era Oppression hauled off and shot (massacred, really) a father and two of his sons. The bereaved widow sued the City, and yesterday got her day in court along with its sad, yet inevitable, result: Judge Tosses Sanctuary Suit In SF Killings

The family of a father and two sons who were shot dead on a San Francisco street in 2008 can't hold the city responsible for failing to turn their alleged killer over to immigration authorities after earlier arrests, a judge has ruled
.
The city isn't legally to blame for any crimes Edwin Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, committed after his release for the offenses he committed as a juvenile, Judge Charlotte Woolard of San Francisco Superior Court said Monday.

Cities "generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime," Woolard said.

She dismissed a damage suit by the widow and daughter of Tony Bologna, 48, who was shot to death in his car near the family's home in the Excelsior district in June 2008. His sons Michael Bologna, 20, and Matthew Bologna, 16, were also killed.

Their brother, who survived the attack, identified Ramos, then 21, as the man who fired the fatal shots from a passing car. Police said the gunman may have mistaken the younger Bolognas for gang members.

People don't like to hear this, but you can't sue a municipality for, say failing to save your house from burning down, or from failing to protect you from crime*. Not only is it hard to hold an individual liable for not doing something, but governments are in the position to pass laws granting them virtual indemnity from such claims. Such laws are, in fact, some of the oldest ones in the book and date back to the Middle Ages. So, this lawsuit had only a snowball's chance in hell of success.

That's not to say that this should be a satisfying result. The "hide the illegal" program was a classic bit ofprogressive policy making: the inevitable result of misplaced sentiment for criminals, racialist concerns about the "community" (I suspect an Irish illegal immigrant would benefit from the City's subterfuge), and the simple smug certainty that the progressive way is the compassionate way. But, as we have learned time and again, the inevitable result of the left's reluctance to punish crime is that crime will increase. The deaths of innocents can only follow.

You would think the deaths in the Bologna family would cause some soul searching among the City's enlightened, but you would be wrong. The mayor canceled the program, but the Board of Supervisors reinstated it over the mayor's veto. As far as I can tell, no one has lost their job, over even expressed regret, over this fiasco. That's an amazing accomplishment when you consider that the prime victims of this are the City's voters, while the prime beneficiaries are not. The Bologna family was betrayed by the City and now that they have suffered the consequences of a failed - not to mention reckless - liberal policy, they are left with no recourse. Certainly, there is no recourse at the ballot box. A sad result all around.

*actually, one of the classic cases of this sort dates back to 1850 when a San Francisco homeowner unsuccessfully sued SF for dynamiting his house to create a firebreak after an earthquake.