Trump’s wall of myths about Steinle case

Sadly, but all too predictably, the verdict in the trial for the killing of Kate Steinle underscores the difficulty of having a calm, rational, fact-based debate on immigration policy. Within hours of the acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the 2015 death of Steinle on a San Francisco pier, President Trump took to Twitter to join the chorus of condemnation of what he called a “travesty of justice.”

His triple-tweet rant showed reckless disregard for the facts. For example:

Untrue: Garcia Zarate was always “committing crimes and being violent.” Fact: His U.S. record consists of drug offenses and convictions for re-entry after deportation, but none involving an act of violence. Untrue: The “killer came back and forth over the weakly protected Obama border.” His successful crossings were in the early 1990s, long before Barack Obama’s presidency. Fact: In Garcia Zarate’s last few attempts to enter the U.S., he was apprehended at the border. His last deportation was in 2009, and three months later he was caught trying to cross the border at Eagle Pass, Texas — and was then incarcerated until he was released from a San Francisco jail in March 2015. Misleading: “The jury was not told the killer of Kate was a 7-time felon.” Even if the prosecution had tried, evidence of his felony re-entry convictions would almost certainly have been ruled irrelevant and thus inadmissible in a homicide case.

This is what is so distressing about the myths and hyperbole being spread by Trump, Fox News and others trying to suggest that her death is justification for a border wall or stiff federal sanctions against sanctuary cities: The facts of this case undermine their argument.

Count me among the many Americans following the case who were disappointed and perplexed by the jury’s verdict. That the jury could convict Garcia Zarate of possessing the gun when it fired — but to exonerate him of any responsibility the killing — is hard to accept. But the debate about the efficacy of the verdict, or the strategy and effectiveness of the prosecution, is a debate for another day. I don’t think any American with an appreciation of the U.S. Constitution would try to use this case to call for an abolition of due process or a right to trial by jury.

My concern here is for the way Kate Steinle’s name is being exploited by people who not only never met her or her family, but never even bothered to look at the facts of the case. I had the privilege of spending time chatting with her parents and brother the week before the verdict. They are remarkable in the grace and perspective they have summoned in a period of unimaginable grief, and they are clearly uncomfortable with their daughter’s death becoming a cause celebre for foes of unchecked immigration.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Dublin, knows the family well. He played high school soccer with Kate’s brother, Brad.

“For me the verdict was disappointing and the politicization of the verdict was doubly disappointing,” Swalwell, a former Alameda County prosecutor, said by phone last week. “It’s sad that Kate’s name is going to always be associated with the immigration debate and all the pejorative rhetoric the president puts out there.”

“BUILD THE WALL!” Trump tweeted in all caps the night of the verdict.

Yet, if anything, the history of Garcia Zarate suggests that effective measures are in place. There is no evidence that he was able to cross the U.S.-Mexican border after 1997, although he kept trying.

As for the sanctuary city debate, it’s fair to question whether San Francisco has struck the right balance for public safety. Reasonable people can disagree about which allegations or criminal histories should compel local law enforcement to notify the feds before releasing an undocumented immigrant.

It’s not fair to conclude that the city’s commitment to the concept of sanctuary city was the sole, or even a major, contributor to Kate’s death.

The sequence of circumstances that led to the death of a dynamic 32-year-old woman as she walked on Pier 14 with her father began when Garcia Zarate was due for release from federal prison, and the authorities made the inexplicable decision in March 2015 to send him to San Francisco for prosecution of a 20year-old charge of buying $20 worth of marijuana. Anyone who knows anything about San Francisco would know that such a case would never merit a minute of attention even if were 2 weeks old. Plus, the evidence had been destroyed years ago, if only the feds or the sheriff had bothered to ask.

The next huge misstep was Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s overreaching interpretation of sanctuary city policies that effectively cut off any communication with the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. The sheriff ’s department ignored ICE’s request to be notified of Garcia Zarate’s release.

Then there was the matter of the gun,

which a Bureau of Land Management ranger had left loaded and insufficiently secured in his vehicle. It was never proved whether Garcia Zarate stole or found the gun, but without it the immigrant would not have had it in his hand while sitting on that pier on that summer day.

San Francisco has modified its sanctuary city policy since Steinle’s death to allow a sheriff slightly more leeway to contact federal immigration authorities when it is about to release someone without legal status who is held on a violent or serious felony charge and has had certain felony convictions in the past.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón knows a little something about what can happen when local law enforcement is viewed as an arm of federal immigration enforcement. As police chief in Mesa, Ariz., Gascón openly sparred with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose racial profiling and heavy-handed sweeps drew judicial reprimands (ultimately a criminal conviction) and stirred deep distrust in the immigrant community. That wedge can make immigrants reluctant to come forward as victims or witnesses.

“When a segment of the community doesn’t cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutors, that eventually impacts everybody, whether you were born here or not, whether you are documented or not,” Gascón said in an interview. “This (Steinle case) became a poster child for the people that are xenophobic and the people that have very strong feelings about people of other races who happen to be of immigrant backgrounds.”

Gascón’s office has taken some heat over the verdict, but none has encountered public wrath more than the office of Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

“The case itself has become sort of a blank wall for people to graffiti their hate and fear,” Adachi said. “Certainly Trump and his administration started that narrative from day one, and it’s taken a life of its own.”

The arguments about building a border wall or defunding sanctuary cities should be driven by facts and practicality, not emotion over a verdict, as maddening as many of us found it. Shame on the president for misrepresenting the facts, and repeatedly invoking the name of Kate Steinle, to advance his agenda..