The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - So are LA and San Fran going to boycott themselves now?

California and Arizona immigration laws similar
Daily Democrat
Created: 05/20/2010 08:28:02 AM PDT

There has been a lot written about Arizona's new Immigration Law that is to go into effect in their state in July. City councils in large cities across California are wanting citizens to boycott Arizona. You hear that the law is racial, it's nazism, it's profiling ... etc. Maybe it would behoove these elected officials to read our own state immigration law. It seems to be quite apparent to me that our officials didn't read Arizona's law. It's pretty much akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
California's immigration law is relatively short and direct in dealing with illegal aliens in the Golden State. Our immigration law falls under Penal Code section 834b, and boy, I got to tell you, it reads a lot like Arizona's law that has upset so many politicians here. You could accuse Arizona of plagiarism concerning some of the wording in subsections (1), (2), and (3) of California's Penal Code 834b. To summarize these subsections, they deal with (1) verifying legal status of a person(s) that a police officer suspects may be here illegally by questioning and demanding (not my word) documentation, (2) advising such person(s) if he/she is here illegally that they must either obtain legal status or leave the United States, and (3) notify the Attorney General of California and Federal Immigration Service of the apparent illegal status and any additional information requested by any other public entity. My educated guess, that public entity would be the Border Patrol.

Maybe our politicians should ask us to boycott ourselves. After all they're doing such a fine job running this state.

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Author:	Aegnor [ Fri May 21, 2010 9:08 am ]
Post subject:	So are LA and San Fran going to boycott themselves now?
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/letters/ci_15125585 Quote: California and Arizona immigration laws similar Daily Democrat Created: 05/20/2010 08:28:02 AM PDT There has been a lot written about Arizona's new Immigration Law that is to go into effect in their state in July. City councils in large cities across California are wanting citizens to boycott Arizona. You hear that the law is racial, it's nazism, it's profiling ... etc. Maybe it would behoove these elected officials to read our own state immigration law. It seems to be quite apparent to me that our officials didn't read Arizona's law. It's pretty much akin to the pot calling the kettle black. California's immigration law is relatively short and direct in dealing with illegal aliens in the Golden State. Our immigration law falls under Penal Code section 834b, and boy, I got to tell you, it reads a lot like Arizona's law that has upset so many politicians here. You could accuse Arizona of plagiarism concerning some of the wording in subsections (1), (2), and (3) of California's Penal Code 834b. To summarize these subsections, they deal with (1) verifying legal status of a person(s) that a police officer suspects may be here illegally by questioning and demanding (not my word) documentation, (2) advising such person(s) if he/she is here illegally that they must either obtain legal status or leave the United States, and (3) notify the Attorney General of California and Federal Immigration Service of the apparent illegal status and any additional information requested by any other public entity. My educated guess, that public entity would be the Border Patrol. Maybe our politicians should ask us to boycott ourselves. After all they're doing such a fine job running this state. Calif. Penal Code Sec 834b wrote: 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Author:	Ladas [ Fri May 21, 2010 9:14 am ]
Post subject:
I love stuff like this.

Author:	Screeling [ Fri May 21, 2010 9:43 am ]
Post subject:
Awesome.

Author:	darksiege [ Fri May 21, 2010 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:
effing morons. (forgot where this was.)

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Fri May 21, 2010 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:
You can't expect legislators to actually know all these laws they and their predecessors have made, can you? I mean, there are so damn many! How unreasonable of you... After all, they've got better things to do with their time than learn the tomes and tomes upon tomes of laws on the books.. like make more laws!

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

So are LA and San Fran going to boycott themselves now? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3006	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Rynar [ Fri May 21, 2010 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: You can't expect legislators to actually know all these laws they and their predecessors have made, can you? I mean, there are so damn many! How unreasonable of you... After all, they've got better things to do with their time than learn the tomes and tomes upon tomes of laws on the books.. like make more laws! You don't make a marketable name for yourself in politics, or draw the necessary support of party minded politicians, by destroying the political legacies that they trade on. Quite the opposite, you forge ahead by passing new landmark legislation with your name on it, and make the friends necessary to do so by leaving theirs intact.

Author:	Micheal [ Fri May 21, 2010 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: So are LA and San Fran going to boycott themselves now?
San Francisco: Sanctuary City Gone Awry July 16, 2008\|By Cinnamon Stillwell San Francisco's political establishment has long prided itself on providing a haven for illegal immigrants. Mayor Gavin Newsom even launched a taxpayer-funded $83,000 "public awareness campaign" earlier this year assuring illegal immigrants that the "sanctuary city" by the bay was in their court. And indeed it is. Under the city's 1989 voter-approved sanctuary ordinance, police officers and other city employees are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status. In addition, the city will not direct municipal funds or employees towards assisting federal immigration enforcement, unless such assistance is required by federal or state law or a warrant. No doubt such protections warm the heart of the city's liberal leadership. But San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city is having unintended consequences. The brutal and senseless murder last month of Tony Bologna and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, at the hands of Edwin Ramos, a native of El Salvador and known member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, was a reminder that inviting illegal activity can turn deadly. The Bolognas were on their way back from a family picnic when they inadvertently blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn in the Excelsior district. When Bologna politely backed up to let the other car past, Ramos responded by opening fire and killing all three passengers. Ramos has been charged with three counts of murder, with the added penalty of street-gang involvement. So far, much of the outcry surrounding the case has centered on San Francisco district attorney Kamala Harris' policy of not seeking the death penalty, in this case, against the wishes of widow, Danielle Bologna. But in the process, Ramos' immigration status has largely been overlooked. Ramos' original lawyer, Joseph O'Sullivan, claimed that his client was in the country legally and applying for permanent residence, but federal immigration authorities insist otherwise and promise to deport Ramos if he is convicted. O'Sullivan has since asked to be removed from the case, claiming a connection via a previous client. Thus, he has never had to explain his assertions regarding Ramos' immigration status. ------------------------------------------------------------ San Francisco has for several years now taken a position contrary to State and Federal law. No, not that kind of position, a legal/policy position. This hasn't gone over well with the State authorities, much less the federal ones. The city by the bay is not being hypocritical, mostly.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri May 21, 2010 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: So are LA and San Fran going to boycott themselves now?
San Francisco has a bad habit of thinking it gets a say in Federal matters.

Author:	Rynar [ Fri May 21, 2010 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:
http://ww.abc6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12515298 Rhode Islanders, who's economic plight I have spoken of in this thread, have also begun to clamor for immigration reform, and yesterday saw Peter Palumbo (D-Dist. 16, Cranston), Representative in our state General Assembly propose legislation strikingly similar to the Arizona law.

Author:	darksiege [ Fri May 21, 2010 9:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: http://ww.abc6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12515298 Rhode Islanders, who's economic plight I have spoken of in this thread, have also begun to clamor for immigration reform, and yesterday saw Peter Palumbo (D-Dist. 16, Cranston), Representative in our state General Assembly propose legislation strikingly similar to the Arizona law. That makes me proud to have been born there, and offers hope if I decide to move back there.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/