Commenter Thomas writes:
What can the federal government do practically against San Francisco?[Comment at Unz.com]
One thing they certainly ought to do after this case is to refuse to hand over anyone pending deportation from federal custody to any sanctuary city or state. Someone pointed out here that Garcia Zarate had been in federal prison, and was pending deportation, but was sent to San Francisco on an old drug warrant (that was promptly dismissed and he was set loose without any notice to the feds). The policy ought to be to keep such individuals in federal custody, and, if they are to appear in a state or local proceeding, they’re brought to court and then promptly returned to a federal lock up, where they’ll stay pending the case. (Make it even better and charge the sanctuary cities a per diem rate to keep them in custody.)
One thing I would like to see is ICE condoning and soliciting unofficial cooperation with police in sanctuary cities, state and local policy be damned. If sanctuary cities want to ignore federal law, nothing says the feds shouldn’t try to do the same regarding sanctuary policies. Cops in the same cities talk and cooperate all the time, even across jurisdictions, and nothing would effectively prevent local cops from surreptitiously “dropping a dime” to ICE about what they know. Maybe also see about coming up with a “special deputy” program, similar to the Section 287(g) program (allowing local law enforcement agencies to be deputized to enforce immigration law), but on an individual level, to allow local cops to do TAD with ICE off the clock. If their departments try to fire them, litigate it through their union proceedings and the courts, and offer DOJ support in doing so, on the argument that trying to fire someone for cooperating with federal law is wrongful termination. And if that fails, just poach them and offer them jobs with ICE, where they can bring along their local law enforcement experience. Those are a few creative ideas that would be worth trying.