Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040

    AZ., CA. immigration laws similar, but not the same

    Arizona, California immigration laws similar, but not the same

    Laws allow police to question people about immigration status

    EDWARD SIFUENTES - esifuentes@nctimes.com
    May 22, 2010 10:09 pm

    Arizona's controversial new immigration law has been harshly criticized by California politicians, but supporters of the law have fired back, saying the Golden State has a similar law on the books that requires police officers to ask a person's immigration status.

    While it is true there is such a law on the books, California's law was rendered moot years ago by a court ruling that said it was unconstitutional.

    Among other things, the Arizona law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police to check the immigration status, when feasible, of those stopped or arrested if a police officer suspects they're in the U.S. illegally.

    The California law, Penal Code 834b, requires police to do so only after a person has been arrested. The code was part of Proposition 187, which was approved by California voters in 1994, but was ruled largely unconstitutional in federal court.

    Prop. 187 sought to bar illegal immigrant children from attending public schools and deny all illegal immigrants most public services.

    "Section 834b was part of Proposition 187 and has been struck down," said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties. "A federal court found that it was preempted by federal law."

    State Attorney General Bill Lockyer reached the same conclusion in a 2001 opinion, saying "the statute's provisions are not subject to enforcement by local law enforcement officers."

    However, the laws governing involvement by local law enforcement officials in enforcing federal immigration laws, particularly when it comes to determining whether a person is in the country illegally, are not always clear cut.

    'Feigned indignation'

    "Local law enforcement officers are not prohibited from cooperating with federal agents in the discharge of their duties," Lockyer wrote in his opinion.

    The ACLU and other civil rights groups recently filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the Arizona law, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

    Lawrence Alexander, a law professor at the University of San Diego, said the Arizona law is constitutional because it doesn't conflict with federal law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

    Alexander said the California law and the Arizona law "appear to be very similar."

    "I think the California outcry is feigned, cynical, politically motivated indignation ---- or else the product of pure ignorance on the part of California politicians," Alexander said.

    Since the Arizona law was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last month, several Latino rights groups and others have criticized the law saying it would lead to racial profiling against Latinos and other minorities. Groups such as the National Council of La Raza have called for boycotts against the state.

    The Arizona law, which is sometimes compared to Prop. 187, takes a different approach than the California measure. Rather than barring illegal immigrants from public benefits, the Arizona Legislature took various parts of federal law and made them part of state law.

    For example, the law makes it a state crime for foreigners not to carry immigration documents; to transport, conceal, harbor or shield an illegal immigrant; and to hire an illegal immigrant for work ---- all are federal crimes.

    Several California cities have officially protested the law, including San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Escondido Councilwoman Olga Diaz wanted to pass a resolution condemning Arizona's law but her effort failed to gain a council majority.

    Supporters of the Arizona law have called criticisms from California politicians hypocritical. On various Web sites, supporters point to California's own law saying that it is very similar to the one in Arizona.

    In a column published in The Washington Times and quoted on several other Web sites, blogger Kerry Picket wrote May 15 that "apparently, Los Angeles politicians have not read their own penal codes, because it appears to read similarly to SB 1070."

    Voluntary cooperation

    In 1995, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer ruled that much of Prop. 187 was unconstitutional. By the time the legal fight was over in 1999, all that remained of the law were relatively minor provisions that made it illegal to make and use fake immigration documents.

    Then-Gov. Gray Davis declined to appeal Pfaelzer's decision and opted for court-sponsored mediation, essentially killing Prop. 187.

    Under federal law, local law enforcement agencies can voluntarily agree to enforce immigration laws as part of a program called 287(g). The program allows police officers to be trained in federal immigration laws and deputizes them to enforce them.

    The federal law also says that an agreement is not necessary to cooperate with immigration authorities in identifying, reporting, apprehending and detaining illegal immigrants.

    No law enforcement agency in San Diego County participates in the 287(g) program. However, the Sheriff's Department allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to work out of local jails to determine whether people who are booked are illegally in the country.

    Any person booked into county jails is automatically screened for immigration violations and status by electronically matching their information, including fingerprints, against federal databases, said Lauren Mack, a spokeswoman for the federal agency in San Diego.

    As of March, 10 California counties were using the program to identify illegal immigrants in jails, including Imperial, Los Angeles and Sacramento counties.

    Call staff writer Edward Sifuentes at 760-740-3511.

    http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcou ... f8c84.html
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    "The California Federal District court eventually ruled that Proposition 187, along with its 834b provision, was unconstitutional. The reasoning behind the ruling was the law was preempted by federal law.

    While 834b remains in the California Penal code to this day, it is not enforceable. However, subsequent to 834 b, Federal immigration 8 USC 1373 was passed. This law gives local police the discretion to communicate with ICE to check someone's immigration status."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/ ... code-834b/
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •