Pssssssssssssss Calfruit before you boycott AZ read you own law

[rojawe]

Talk about living in a glass house and throwing rocks Read your own bill
CALIFORNIA'S IMMIGRATION LAW VERY SIMILAR TO SB 1070
CA Cities Can Now Boycott Each Other
California's penal code section 834b requires, not merely permits, law enforcement to attempt to verify the immigration status of people who are suspected of being in the US illegally.

But there are basic differences.

The California law requires verification of immigration status when a person has been arrested. Undersection 834 of the Calif. Penal Code, that means when a person has been taken into custody. Arizona requires verification when there has been "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest." Note that HB2162, the amendments to the original Arizona law, inserted "any lawful stop, detention or arrest" in place of "contact .Arizona requires verification when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person being stopped, detained,or arrested might be in the US illegally. California does not require "reasonable" suspicion. Verification is required only if it is "suspected" that the person is in the US illegally.

But one difference stands out. Nothing in the California Penal Code Section 834b prohibits police from basing their decision on a person's race or ethnicity the way HB2162 explicitly prohibits Arizona police from considering "race, color, or national origin" when carrying out their duties "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Again, Arizona's SB1070 prohibited police from solely basing their actions on "race, color or national origin." HB2162 deleted the word "solely," which means that the police cannot consider these factors at all unless it is permitted by the US and Arizona Constitutions.

Apparently some Californians haven't noticed they live in a glass house. It's time they stop throwing stones at Arizona.

                                                                        ###

[ericire12]

Too good to check!

I guess California is gonna start boycotting itself

[tombogan03884]

The differance is that Az. will actually enforce their law instead of using it as feel good BS to pacify a few "racists".  

[david86440]

This is a link to the California Attorney General’s Opinion #01-213 when asked these questions:

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0707/app9.htm

THE HONORABLE LOU CORREA, MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following questions:

1. Are the mandatory provisions of Penal Code section 834b concerning cooperation, verification, and notification with respect to persons arrested who are suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws subject to enforcement by local law enforcement officers?

2. May a local law enforcement officer, during a detention of a Spanish-speaking person for otherwise valid purposes, question the person as to his or her immigration status?

3. May an arrested person’s immigration status be investigated by local law enforcement officers prior to arraignment?


The opinion is an interesting read........


http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0707/app9.htm

[Woody]

They become accessories to the crime if they do not enforce it. That state is trashed.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

They have a selective legal system in that state. They enforce only the laws that sit with them for the times. The times now call for illegal invaders to be allowed to run amok in that state, so people the likes of Gavin Newsom, San Francisco's mayor, give cops the order to "lay off". Cops do what they are told. They don't set policy, they are simply instruments tuned to play whatever song the conductor wants. It's about the closest thing to anarchy you can achieve without total civil breakdown, and that is coming over there.  Bill T.

[ratcatcher55]

This is the best reply to California yet.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-responds-to-la-boycott-over-sb1070/

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona.  Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine.  As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce

[r_w]

This is the best reply to California yet.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/18/az-utility-board-member-responds-to-la-boycott-over-sb1070/

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona.  Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine.  As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce

  no veil in that promise.  Hats off to them.

[alfsauve]