From the State of fruits and nuts, you know, the bankrupt one precariously perched along the San Andreas Fault, the one that has outlawed legal ownership of .50 BMG rifles, the one that has outlawed legal ownership of a whole class of ill-and-malapropos-defined “assault” [sic] weapons, comes the pin-headed move that really pulls the rag off the bush.
Various groups of elected officials there have decided they are going to boycott Arizona, because Arizona has passed a law that states if an individual’s presence in this country is illegal according to Federal law, then it is also against Arizona law. Hmmm, I wonder if the California boycott also includes the electricity California buys from Arizona? Nobody ever accused the politicos in California of being great Constitutional scholars, but we wonder if anybody there bothered to check what the U.S. Constitution has to say about free trade among the several states, and taxing or restraining—or in this case outright boycotting—such trade.
A fair guess would be that they never bothered to check, as they do not appear to be very good at reading laws, not the Supreme Law of the Land… nor even their own penal code.
California already has a law on the books, more stringent than the one Arizona just passed, that spells out what all California LEOs—no matter from what jurisdiction—are required to do when they arrest an illegal alien. And it has legal consequences for those officials and/or jurisdictions that do not comply.
It does not say such illegals will be issued a California driver’s license: It says they will be turned over to federal authorities, after the State of California has finished their business with the individual. Nor does it say that flaky individual jurisdictions can opt-out of the law and declare themselves “amnesty” cities: It says this is the law, and everybody has to comply with it alike. Gee, what a novel concept!
We couldn’t make up this sort of political comedy, but so you will know we didn’t, below are the texts of the pre-existing California law, and the newer Arizona law. Read them both, and then you decide who’re the knuckleheads here. For all the reading on the topic you want, since you will NOT get it from the network news or large city papers, go on-line and Google “California Penal Code.”
Inspired by Arizona’s new law, legislators in nearly a dozen states are considering new laws they hope will be effective against illegal immigration—and it may be good politics to do so: A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 9 out of 10 Americans say it is at least moderately important for the federal government to act this year to secure the borders and stop illegal immigration. Just more than 60 percent say they are very concerned undocumented workers are putting an unfair burden on U.S. schools, hospitals, and social services.
The Arizona measure directs police to question lawful residency only after individuals have been stopped on reasonable suspicion of having violated another law. It directs police to verify residency if suspects are unable to produce documentation. Why is this an outrage? And if their presence in this country is in itself illegal, why shouldn’t our laws apply to them? They apply to you and me, Joe.
Steven A. Camarota, research director for the nonprofit Center for Immigration Studies, noted to Newsmax that requiring identification after a traffic violation is just common sense: without proper identification, a citation is virtually unenforceable, he noted.
For California and Arizona penal code citations click to the next page.
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
(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
834c. (a) (1) In accordance with federal law and the provisions of
this section, every peace officer, upon arrest and booking or
detention for more than two hours of a known or suspected foreign
national, shall advise the foreign national that he or she has a
right to communicate with an official from the consulate of his or
her country, except as provided in subdivision (d). If the foreign
national chooses to exercise that right, the peace officer shall
notify the pertinent official in his or her agency or department of
the arrest or detention and that the foreign national wants his or
her consulate notified.
(2) The law enforcement official who receives the notification
request pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be guided by his or her
agency’s procedures in conjunction with the Department of State
Guidelines Regarding Foreign Nationals Arrested or Detained in the
United States, and make the appropriate notifications to the consular
officers at the consulate of the arrestee.
(3) The law enforcement official in charge of the custodial
facility where an arrestee subject to this subdivision is located
shall ensure that the arrestee is allowed to communicate with,
correspond with, and be visited by, a consular officer of his or her
(b) The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Treaty was
signed by 140 nations, including the United States, which ratified
the agreement in 1969. This treaty guarantees that individuals
arrested or detained in a foreign country must be told by police
“without delay” that they have a right to speak to an official from
their country’s consulate and if an individual chooses to exercise
that right a law enforcement official is required to notify the
(c) California law enforcement agencies shall ensure that policy
or procedure and training manuals incorporate language based upon
provisions of the treaty that set forth requirements for handling the
arrest and booking or detention for more than two hours of a foreign
national pursuant to this section prior to December 31, 2000.
(d) Countries requiring mandatory notification under Article 36 of
the Vienna Convention shall be notified as set forth in this section
without regard to an arrested or detained foreign national’s request
to the contrary. Those countries, as identified by the United States
Department of State on July 1, 1999, are as follows:
(1) Antigua and Barbuda.
(4) The Bahamas.
(11) Costa Rica.
(13) Czech Republic.
(16) The Gambia.
(21) Hong Kong.
(35) Poland (nonpermanent residents only).
(38) Saint Kitts and Nevis.
(39) Saint Lucia.
(40) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
(42) Sierra Leone.
(48) Trinidad and Tobago.
(52) United Kingdom.
However, any countries requiring notification that the above list does not identify because the notification requirement became effective after July 1, 1999, shall also be required to be notified.
(Note: the Arizona SB 1070 is lengthy, as it amends existing statutes. Below is an excerpt: For the full text click here.)
“…No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.
4. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
G. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:
1. That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.
2. That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G and remit the civil penalty to the department of public safety for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41 1724.
I. A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
J. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens…”
From the State of fruits and nuts, you know, the bankrupt one precariously perched…
by Tactical-Life.com / May 25, 2010