I"m not sure how Saunders managed to overlook the racial profiling at the core of SB 1070 when she put together this straw man argument, which ostensibly asks the Obama administration to target immigration sanctuary cities along with Arizona. She also seems unaware of the legal channels that allow sanctuary cities to exist. This is a misleading story.

While there's some merit to this perspective, I think it misses an important distinction between SF's sanctuary city provisions, and SB 1070 -- civil rights. The Arizona law, according to many, may force law enforcement to discriminate based on race, and make brown-skinned people in the state, regardless of their immigration status, carry proof of citizenship.

Too brief to be highly informative. While its relevant to residents of San Francisco, who are probably very familiar with the concept of a sanctuary city (though not necessarily), it is more difficult for an outsider to understand what is at stake here. It clearly seems relevant, as the writer asks, "Does this mean that if Team Obama prevails over Arizona, San Francisco and other sanctuary cities should prepare to go to court against the feds?"