Posted on 05/29/2010 12:01:49 PM PDT by blueyon
The media, local California governments and liberal groups are absolutely a hoot. Their ignorance is breath taking.
Arizona's new immigration law is said to be racist according to reports in the media from a variety of liberal groups; it's not if you actually read it. Local California cities want to boycott Arizona which is questionable under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, but it is also incredible hypocrisy.
For my non-lawyer friends, you probably didn't know that California also has a law pertaining to illegal aliens. Yep. It's been on the books since 1994! Good ole Prop 187. The law provides that law enforcement shall [note -- not "may"] cooperate with US Immigration and Naturalization Service, [now known as ICE], regarding any person suspected of being in the US illegally to include verifying that person's status, advise the person that they must seek legal status to reside in the US, notify the federal government of that person's illegal status and prohibits local governments from not enforcing this law. Most notable is the absence of any reference in the statute to the ability of law enforcement to use race as a basis for inquiry of the person's status! Only an arrest is required to trigger the inquiry into that person's status.
In other words, California's law is racist while Arizona's is not, to use liberal logic, because race may not be used to trigger the inquiry into status in Arizona after an arrest. In California, no problem! Racial profile all you want!
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yeah, that would be funny. Hey California, go Boycott yerself!
Arizona should add a 100% tax to all power generated in or passing through AZ to California. Call it a “counter-boycott tax.”
And add a 1000% hypocrisy tax...
CHP impounds cars of those without licenses or registration, but a CHP officer told me they dont report illegals because "its political".
IOW, the CHP and other police agencies in CA are corrupt, and only enforce laws they choose to.
The same is not true in Arizona.
How do we get them to enforce the law? Why are they allowed to have sanctuary cities that openly violate this law?
This is in the California 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.
I know this is going to sound like a joke or a smart ass answer but it is not.
Liberals obey only the laws they choose to obey. One of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals advises that the Left should hold their opponents to the absolute letter of the law and of their own (opponent's) moral values. Conversely, there are no rules for the Left. Lying, cheating, subterfuge, vote stealing, whatever, are all fair for the Left.
During Clinton's years they were trying to get a national gun control law passed and to expand police forces. As part of that they stopped enforcing the gun laws already on the books. Crime increased as they had planned and that was intended to help their cause. They did get federal money for "100,000 more police officers on the streets" but weren't successful with gun control.
Presently, they are not enforcing the immigration laws and we are being overrun with illegals in our country. The Democrats quickly convert those folks into voters for the Left. Then they criticize those who try to enforce the law. The federal government, controlled by the Left (Democrats), doesn't want the immigration laws enforced so they don't enforce them.
The left’s real anger with Arizona is that they’re going to start enforcing the law, even though SB1070 has become the focal point. The anger and criticism of SB1070 is what’s ‘misguided.’
“(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:”
This part is different than the Arizona law. The real question is whether a lawful arrest is a necessary condition precedent under the Constitution to engage in immigration status verification. Terry v. Ohio, and its progeny, suggests not. It’s old law-Terry was decided circa 1963. But the critics aren’t really interested in the facts; never were, never will be.
Sadly the Feds took prop 187 from us.
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill’s passage, Federal Judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren.[20] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994 - blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents - multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[21]Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187’s effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a “scheme” to regulate immigration:
“California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits.”
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, in 1999, newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation,[22] and then dropped the appeals process before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[23]
Where does the US Government get the power to exclusively regulate immigration? The constitution only grants the authority to set uniform rules naturalization. It says nothing about the feds controlling immigration. I guess that is one of those powers that falls under the infamous commerce clause...power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states? Does anyone know the exact grounds on which the Federal government claims exclusive jurisdiction to regulate immigration?
Schwarzenegger is afraid to enforce it becuase he thinks he would have to deport himself. Ignorance
Arnold Schwarzenegger (D)
He’s not a republican in any way shape or form. He’s a stupid liberal dem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.