"Governor" Gavin Newsom takes to the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle (link) to defend that city's sanctuary policy. It starts out with:

In 1985, San Francisco became one of the first cities in America to address a dangerous local consequence of America's failed immigration policy.

No less an authority than the Frisco "Immigrant Rights Commission" calls into question Newsom's timing (sfgov.org/site/immigrant_page.asp?id=4973):

In 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 375-89, declaring San Francisco to be a City and County of Refuge

Both dates are around the 1986 amnesty; Newsom tries to use the fact that we haven't passed a new amnesty as justification for continuing the policy (from this: Newsom also said the ordinance's establishment was "directly connected with the failure of the federal government" to address immigration reform "in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner.") He hasn't explained why there appears to be a conflict; shouldn't the 1986 amnesty have made the 1989 policy unnecessary? If not, how would a new amnesty solve matters?

Hopefully San Francisco residents will come up with the moxie to start going to Newsom's public appearances (or calling into radio shows where he appears) and work to publicly embarrass him and drive him from office.