Daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the l
Conversation. With the death of george floyd in Police Custody last month we have seen protest that only here in america but internationally and we have seen a certain narrative take hold. It starts with the assumption the only way to properly view George Floyds death is through a racial lens. In fact all encounters are increasingly viewed this way it is a narrative of behavior typical misbehavior and what happens to black people all the time people in the house each day worried about having a violent encounter. The media has run with a narrative which faces very little pushback or skepticism. And leaves us with the biggest problem facing black America Today at is at the root of social inequality in america. In the middle of a National Conversation and then easier to prosecute and armed radicals of a major city in seattle. And they have the mayors blessing. The commentators who not only make excuses for the writing and looting but also to a large extent so what is going on here . And t
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the june 15th, 2020, meeting of the rules committee. I am supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. With me on the Video Conference is rules Committee Vice chair supervisor Catherine Stefani and rules Committee Member supervisor gordon mar. Our clerk today is victor young. And id like to thank sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements . Clerk yes. My apologies. Due to the covid19 health emergency, and to protect board members, City Employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed. However, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. This precaution is taken pursuant to the statewide stayathome order and all local, state, federal and declaration directives. Committee meetings will attend the meeting through Video Conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. Public comment will be available on each
Conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda, both channel 26 and sfgovtv. Org are streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Comments during the Public Comment period are available via phone by calling 415 6550001. Again 415 6550001. Access code 145 307 5686. Again 145 307 5686. Then press and again. When connected, youll hear the meeting discussion, but youll be muted and in listening mode only. When the item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively you may submit Public Comment to email, to myself, the rules Committee Clerk at victo victor. Young sfgovtv. Org. Ifyoucommitpubliccommentviaemail ,itwillbeforwardtothesupervisors a ndincludedaspartofthefile. Finally,itemsa
Based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the law to its logical extreme since it undermines confidence in the rule of law itself and conflicts with the agencys Law Enforcement mission. I would like to begin with the review ability question. If the