Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,087

    Hey, San Fran! How about boycotting California first!

    Hey, San Fran! How about boycotting California first!

    By Bobby Eberle
    May 20, 2010 7:13 AM
    49 Comments

    Boycotts, boycotts, boycotts. That's all we're hearing these days. As soon as Arizona stepped forward to take a stand against illegal immigration by simply passing a law that reiterates current federal law, liberals across the country went wild. Left-wing local governments such as in San Francisco were quick to condemn Arizona's efforts to protect its residents. However, before San Francisco gets too high and mighty, perhaps the city officials should boycott California first!

    That's right. While San Francisco and Los Angeles are busy boycotting Arizona, these government officials ignore the fact that California's own illegal immigration law is VERY similar to Arizona's newly passed SB 1070. As noted in the Washington Times, below is the portion of "section 834b of the California Penal Code that deals with immigration law enforcement at the local level:" http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/ ... s-ariz-la/

    (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.

    Ummmmm.... er..... In reality, the reason San Francisco http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 2smQxqi1Fg and Los Angeles http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/05/13/lo ... a.boycott/ and other liberal local governments are upset is because they know Arizona will actually ENFORCE the law! Oh my... you mean laws are supposed to be enforced? Interesting concept.

    Enforcement of immigration laws and protecting America's borders isn't something that has sunk in with Barack Obama either. In welcoming Mexico's president to the White House, Obama spoke of a "truth of our time," saying, "we are defined, not by our borders, but by our bonds."

    President Obama Tells Mexican President "We are Not Defined by Our Borders"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63xEbqO ... r_embedded

    At the news conference, Obama continued to criticize the Arizona law, calling it "misdirected" and "warning that it has the potential to be applied in a discriminatory fashion." http://www.gopusa.com/news/2010/05/obam ... on-law.php Misdirected? It sounds to me like it's specifically targeted. Is the current federal law misdirected? Is the California law misdirected? Ah right, they are unenforced, so what difference does it make?

    http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2010/05/h ... -first.php
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member redpony353's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SF
    Posts
    4,883
    San Francisco wont get away with the sanctuary scheme much longer. There is a lot of opposition here now. All the whining you are hearing from some so-called city leaders are just their last whimpers before they sink into the quick sand. Sigh. I thought this day would never come.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,038
    RELATED

    Cali. penal code pertaining to immigration similar to Ariz.

    http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-199686.html

    Arizona Law coming to California in 2012 election.

    http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-199669.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

Posting Permissions

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