Thread: Cali. penal code pertaining to immigration similar to Ariz.

Calif. penal code pertaining to immigration similar to Ariz.'s SB 1070

By Kerry Picket on May 15, 2010
Washington Times


The Los Angeles City Council's vote to boycott Arizona caused more consternation than anything else. L.A. City Council members voted an overwhelming 13-1 to terminate any city contracts with Arizona (worth about $7.7 million) as did other American cities who have considered resolutions to protest the Arizona law or seek boycotts. Among these cities are San Francisco and St. Paul, Minn.

The lone dissenter on the council, Republican Greig Smith, said in an e-mail statement:

"The Hahn motion is not in the economic best interests of the City of Los Angeles. I have always opposed using the Los Angeles City Council to weigh in on non-related social issues that are not within the purview of Los Angeles. I voted no on the motion to boycott Arizona."

Unfortunately, Mr. Smith's thinking did not find its way to the United Nations. The international body, that recognizes genocidal tyrants and enables them to remain in power, weighed in on the debate, saying, "The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics."

"I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport," Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, a Democrat, said before the vote. "If I come across an officer who's had a bad day and feels the picture on my ID is not me, I could be summarily deported -- no questions asked. That is not American."

Oh really? I interviewed Mr. Reyes on Friday about his thinking on Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070. While Mr. Reyes insisted he read the 16-page law and is aware that the law prohibits law enforcement officers from asking individuals their legal status based on their race, national origin, and color, he said that the law would not stop law enforcement officers from racially profiling anyway.

"Why should I as an American worry about walking down a street in the United States fearing harassment, because of the color of my skin? Why should I have to live like that?"

I pressed him on that issue reminding the city councilman that SB 1070 is based on federal immigration law of the past 70 years. I asked what exactly changed in his mind.

"You have a law that begins to classify and categorize a whole group of people that look a certain way. You're creating a second-class citizen. You're creating an environment of fear." Below is a partial transcript of our conversation:

PICKET: Where exactly in the law does it say that? Considering that it prohibits that? As I'm asking here, federal law which has been around for about seventy years has been saying that undocumented individuals have to be carrying papers, so what exactly has changed between federal law of the last seventy years and Arizona's law?

REYES: What's changed is you have a very active effort to round up people that look a certain way, and if you have proof you are an American citizen that let you go, and if you don't they deport you. So now, that I look like a Mexican, and I am Mexican American, I become a target.

PICKET: Why is this law considered any different than what has been around for the last seventy years...because it's being enforced?

REYES: Why does a state have to call that out? Why can't it just follow the federal law like you said for the past seventy years? (AUDIO)

I also spoke with Becca Doten, communications director for Los Angeles City Councilman and Democrat Richard Alarcon. Doten relayed the Councilman's response to my questions regarding his vote to boycott Arizona.

"He read the law. He doesn't believe that Arizona Police are inherently racist, but he believes that the law will create circumstances that can enable racial profiling, because they [The Arizona Police] have never been trained on immigration law, false ID's, etcetera, that's specific to immigration enforcement. It's not that they're inherently racist but that they're unskilled in trying to enforce a law in which they have not had specific training."

This is an interesting argument, considering the California Penal Code actually requires that every law enforcement agency in the state 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."

Below is a copy of section 834b of the California Penal Code that deals with immigration law enforcement at the local level.

(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.

Here is Arizona's SB 1070

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

15 immigration laws; indemnification

16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR

17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS

28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM

29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE

30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND

31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY

33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES

34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO

35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE

36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

UPDATED 5/17/10 - Whoa! Apparently, Los Angeles politicians have not read their own penal codes, because it appears to read similarly to SB 1070. Unfortunately, California has looked the other way with a wink and a nod and allowed the City and County of San Francisco to become a City and County of Refuge. The contradiction is another area that Californians have yet to clear up themselves.

In 2007 San Francisco was sued for not complying with state law and failing to report non - citizens for drug arrests. It should be noted that according to reports, the individual who filed the lawsuit was a "70-year old Portola district resident who came to the United States from Nicaragua at the age of 9... said he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially those who break the law after they get here."

Placing boycotts on Arizona, using excuses like SB 1070 could "lead to racial profiling", or that the Arizona police are not sufficiently "trained" to handle a job the federal authorities should be doing, is just nonsense. The Los Angeles City Council and cities currently boycotting Arizona might want to re-examine their own immigration laws before they start nitpicking at others.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/ ... s-ariz-la/

So not only does our federal government not enforce their immigration laws, the state of California doesn't enforce state law either. Double bust!

I am FLOORED. I did not even know that Cali had this law. I knew about prop 187, but not about this law. OMG!!!! It has been there the whole time. Sigh. They just have not enforced it.

Added to Homepage:

http://www.alipac.us/article-5274--0-0.html

Tuesday, May 18, 2010
California Law Regarding Illegal Immigration
With the idiots in San Diego, Los Angeles, and Sacramento trying to make some hay about Arizona's new immigration law, it might be fun to look at California's law on the subject. Why didn't I think to do this before hearing about it on the radio this morning? I have LegInfo.ca.gov (The Official California Legislative Information Page) bookmarked and often refer to it for education code. Today, though, we look at Penal Code Section 834b:

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.


Does this last clause make our so-called sanctuary cities illegal? If so, why do we tolerate them? It seems absurd that a city would expect citizens to obey every little law and ordinance while that same city flouts state law.

So what's the difference between Arizona's law and California's law? Arizona probably intends to enforce its law.

http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com ... legal.html

Here is an interesting tid bit I found on the Judicial Watch web site with regard to the Cali law that mirrors the new Arizona law. Note that this is dated July 30, 2009:

JW Petitions California Supreme Court to Review Challenge to LA Sanctuary Policy
ViewDiscussion.LAPD’s Special Order 40 Sanctuary Policy is a Dangerous and Unlawful “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tellâ€

It would seem that there are many California politicians and officials that should be tried and thrown in jail! Hey Arnie! Get to work you piss poor excuse for a Republican!

Stinkin' lousy flea bit, scum sucking politicians!

Enforce your own damn laws and quit stirring the race pot. Bunch of communist scumbags!

Does this last clause make our so-called sanctuary cities illegal? If so, why do we tolerate them? It seems absurd that a city would expect citizens to obey every little law and ordinance while that same city flouts state law.

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. It's the reason why I keep suggesting hammering at the idea that "All the AZ law really does is make it illegal for any government agency in their state to practice Sanctuary Policies."

I'm so happy to see the media start to admit that!!!

California Penal Code Section 834b seems to only apply to "any person who is arrested".

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested . . .

It seems to say that CA. law enforcement officer can ask the immigration status of "any person who is arrested".
It doesn't say that they can ask the immigration status of just anyone they come in contact with.
Just people who are already arrested. Is what I see.

That would be covered by participation in the I.C.E 287(g) Program and the I.C.E. Secure Communities Program,
which many CA. counties and cities already do.

CA. Secure Community counties and date they started in the program.

2009
San Diego
Los Angeles
Imperial
Ventura

Santa Barbara 1/2010
San Luis Obispo 1/2010
Sacramento 1/12/2010
Solano 1/12/2010
San Joaquin 2/16/2010
Stanislaus 2/16/2010
Sonoma 3/ 2/ 2010
Orange 3/16/2010
Fresno 3/ 23/ 2010

I just got off the phone with the LA 13, I called each one of them and NONE of them have heard of CPC 834b

Sounds like they are following Holders lead.

Or are a bunch of PC racists.