Californians Split On Arizona's Illegal Immigration Crackdown ["Split"? 50% Support: 43% Oppose!]

Californians Split On Arizona's Illegal Immigration Crackdown Of the voters surveyed, 50% support Arizona's law and 43% oppose it. There were sharp divides along lines of ethnicity and age.

California voters are closely divided over the crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona, with sharp splits along lines of ethnicity and age, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll.

Overall, 50% of registered voters surveyed said they support the law, which compels police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, while 43% oppose it. That level of support is lower than polls have indicated nationwide.

But attitudes among the state's voters are not uniform. Strong majorities of white voters and those over 50 support the Arizona law, while Latinos and those under 30 are heavily opposed.

Arizona's adoption of the law in April stirred passions and protests across the nation, with cities including Los Angeles voting to boycott the state. The matter has turned into a pressure point in electoral battles, including the Republican gubernatorial primary in California. But the poll shows that most voters, even those with ardent feelings about the measure, said they were unlikely to reject candidates based solely on their immigration stance.

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 disagree. Lived here since 1974. Very little can be done because Hispanics are a formidable voting bloc. Voters passed Proposition 187 more than 10 years ago only to have the federal courts strike it down and (ousted) Gov. Gray Davis refused to appeal.

See below- taken from ACLU website.

CA’s Anti-Immigrant Proposition 187 is Voided, Ending State’s Five-Year Battle with ACLU, Rights Groups

July 29, 1999
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LOS ANGELES — A court-approved mediation today ended years of legal and political debate over Proposition 187, a controversial ballot measure that sought to limit services to illegal immigrants.

The agreement confirms that no child in the state of California will be deprived of an education or stripped of health care due to their place of birth. It also makes clear that the state cannot regulate immigration law, a function that the U.S. Constitution clearly assigns to the federal government.

Passed in November 1994, Proposition 187 sought, among other things, to require police, health care professionals and teachers to verify and report the immigration status of all individuals, including children.

Days after the measure passed, a federal district court judge held that it violated the United States Constitution and issued an injunction barring its implementation. Today’s agreement validates that ruling.

“The seal of the great state of California is now stamped on the death certificate of Proposition 187,” said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, a litigant in one of several challenges to the measure. “The court-approved stipulation marks not just the end of this case, but an end to nearly five years of racial divisiveness throughout California.”

California’s Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who participated in the mediation, agreed.

“Today’s settlement signals that it’s time to move beyond the divisiveness of Proposition 187,” he said. “The decision ensures that children can get an education, working families can get health care, and law enforcement can focus on fighting crime. We stand together today to say in one loud voice that Californians are tired of wedge issues and culture wars.”

In March 1998, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final ruling in the ACLU’s challenge to Proposition 187, confirming the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration and declaring the measure unconstitutional. The ACLU’s news release on that ruling is at /news/n031898a.html.

CHRONOLOGY OF PROPOSITION 187

November 8, 1994
California voters pass Proposition 187. The stated purpose of the Proposition is to “provide for cooperation between [the] agencies of state and local government with the federal government, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California.”

November 9, 1994
After Proposition 187 passes, several actions challenging its constitutionality are commenced in California state and federal courts. Gregorio T. v. Wilson brought by the ACLU/SC and MALDEF, contests all provisions of the initiative. Ultimately, five suits are filed in the United States District Court. The plaintiffs seek to bar the Governor and other state officials and entities from implementing and enforcing the provisions of Proposition 187.

November 1994
A temporary restraining order is issued, barring Proposition 187 from being implemented.

August 22, 1996
President Clinton signs the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA) of 1996 into law. The PRA creates a statutory scheme that restricts and defines the eligibility of certain non-citizens for federal, state and local benefits and services.

September 30, 1996
President Clinton signs into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), further supplementing the federal immigration regulatory scheme.

March 13, 1998
The district court issues decisions, ruling that sections 1, and 4 through 9 of Proposition 187 are preempted by the federal PRA, IIRAIRA, and other federal law.

June, 1999
Governor Davis initiates a request for mediation to resolve the appeal of Proposition 187.

July 29, 1999
The mediated agreement is signed by all parties and submitted to the court.

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.