Posted on 07/06/2010 4:07:56 PM PDT by Takethathill
I posted this as a thread on another blog; but, I thought some would find this interesting. I am going to remove the areas that mention the state, adding (state removed). At the end I will give the answer away. So, what state do you think has this evil racist law?
834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in (state removed) 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 (state removed) 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.
No, not Arizona SB1070, not Texas, not even some racist southern state. Ready for this...California. I wonder if if any of the sanctuary cities in California have even read Penal Code 834b. I wonder how many police chiefs have advised their elected bodies that they are likely violating state law. Look at the wording, 'shall' not should.
Yes, California.
Hypocrites abound...
The sanctuary state of CA. *sigh* We really do need to just go under.....
Maybe someone can confirm; was this provision thrown out by the California courts?
California’s law is almost identical to Arizona’s. Missouri also has a very similar law.
Apparently there are claims that this is unenforceable. Something about the proposition it was tied to not being passed.
Any idea what that’s about?
No, I pulled this today from a California Code website.
I pulled this from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/index.html.
Sorry, I should have added this. I just found this today. Look it up in the California Penal Code. This is not provisional or a bill, it is penal code.
The difference is that the California law applies post-arrest (subject in custody), but the Arizona law applies pre-arrest (stop and detain without an arrest), but based on reasonable suspicion. However, stops based on reasonable suspicion, without probable cause to arrest, have been around since the early 1960’s, when the SCOTUS decided Terry v. Ohio. In other words, SB1070 gives no new power to the police, but merely focuses it on enforcement of existing federal law, using existing authority and standards of constitutional protections.
Thanks, I did the same.
If you scan the net you’ll find comments that it was thrown out by a judge when Gray Davis was governor, that it was somehow part of Prop 187 and failed to take effect when 187 was thrown out, that the courts issued a stay on 834b at some point, but nothing clear-cut.
So I did the same as you and yes, its still right there in the penal code.
Interesting.
Could a citizen of CA, file charges against his local PD for failure to determine the status of an illegal who has committed crimes in the state?
I don't know if this was part of Prop 187 and was thrown out by the court or not, but laws held unconstitutional by a court still appear in the published law books unless and until the legislature repeals them.
Possibly, but it would most likely have to be an action against the government for an order quo warranto, which is an order from a court that compels a government to perform a statutory duty. It’s a rare and somewhat arhaic device that still exists in some states, like Washington.
I guessed it was Calif the minute I started reading this.
A law is just words on paper until it’s enforced, and the current invasion of illegals are banking on that.
Correction: not quo warranto, but writ of mandamus.
To me the hypocrisy of the current administration on this issue is breathtaking. ICE runs roadblocks a long way from the border where everyone is stopped and whoever "looks" suspicious has to prove that they are legally present in the USA - and that include US citizens. No probable cause, not post arrest, just a plain old roadblock with guys with guns asking questions.
ICE has one in Vermont, on I-91 just south of White River Junction. Why they think they are going to find illegal immigrants there, in the middle of Vermont, is anybody's guess.
And we've got the President complaining that somebody in Arizona might have to provide ID while they are taking their kids out for ice cream. I guess he doesn't mind if we have to do that in Vermont, and unlike Arizona everybody gets stopped (although they wave most of us through since we, uh look like Americans), instead of just someone who already was stopped by the police based on some other probable cause. And in Vermont you can sit in the line of cars on the interstate for quite some time, waiting your turn to get inspected by the ICE guys.
I heard something about this on somebody’s radio show and I think they said something like the difference between them
was that in Cal. the person has to be ‘arrested’ for some offense before inquiring into their legal status,
while in Arizona, the law says the person has to be ‘stopped’ for some other purpose before inquiring into their legal status.
Other than that they were pretty much the same.
At least that’s what I think they said.
Anyone who spends any time travelling the southwest knows that there are constantly “check points” on the major highways. We are in Yuma,AZ and run into ICE check points in almost every direction. I-10 down by the border in Texas is littered with them.
This is indeed the true irony of all this. We’ve sat in plenty of long lines just to get waived through, or quickly asked if we are citizens. No big deal, it’s just part of the landscape. Annoying but understandable and an inconvenience we are willing to endure if it means secure borders. What is infuiating is that the borders ARE NOT secure and these check points are a waist of time and money (and my over priced deisel).
So I have no sympathy for anyone who is “inconvenieced” by a lawful request for “paperzzzzz”.
That was part of Prop186 which is currently under a permanent injunction preventing it from being enforced.
FWIW, the injunction was never appealed. The law is on the books but unless the Governor were to direct the Attorney General to file an appeal to overturn the injuntion, the law is unenforceable.
Maybe someone should ask Meg Whitman whether she would be willing to challenge the injunction.
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.