Written by California’s biggest export lately seems to be hypocrisy.
The state of California has gotten a little holier than thou lately, but they forgot to look at themselves in the mirror first.
While California government is busy cancelling contracts with Arizona and Californians are busily boycotting us, they need to also find a place other than California to spend their money.
You see, Sect 834b of California Penal Code requires the same thing as Arizona’s SB 1070. So, if they think that Arizona is racist and whatever else they are accusing us of, well, they are the same, quoting from CA law that for any person arrested ”if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws” law enforcement verification process may include ”demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status” According to their own words about Arizona’s law, they, themselves are living in and paying taxes to a racist state.
Here is a partial list of outspoken Californians who apparently don’t know what their own state law says:
- California President pro tem Derrell “Moral Obligation” Steinberg
- San Francisco Supervisors David Campos and Bevan Dufty, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris
- The City Councils of West Hollywood and Oakland
- The Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
- Former Tucsonan, Singer Linda Ronstadt will need to move from racist California
- Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
The bills are similar, but there appears to be one key distinction. California’s law applies to people who have been arrested. Arizona’s law, if I’m not mistaken, does not require law enforcement to place someone under arrest before they attempt to verify immigration status.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big supporter of SB 1070, but it kind of seems like you’re comparing apples to oranges here.
Nick,
So you honestly think there is a real difference between an arrest and a “lawful stop, detention or arrest”? If a peace officer stops you do you think there is a difference between a detention and arrest? There isn’t. You are not free to go if you are being detained. You have the right to remain silent, even if the officer has not told you so. Don’t fool yourself into thinking there is a difference because the only difference is in the word games.
Nick, you have a point but, my opinion, you are talking about a shade of difference. The “what does an illegal immigrant look like” arguement that keeps getting floated on the “is suspected of being an illegal” language also comes into play. If that kind of law is boycott worthy in AZ than the California Pot should is calling the kettle black.
Arizona’s law does require “lawful contact” which, from what I’ve read involves enforcement of a state or local law.
There is another post on the site, written from the perspective of law enforcement, that discusses the issues of detention and arrest that is helpful in discerning how this law is enforced and some differences between the existing law:
http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=6329
Either law puts the issue of having law enforcement deal with the issue of sorting out citizens and legal residents from illegals. And long standing federal law is quite clear on the requirement, as a condition of legal residency, to carry documentation if you are > 18 years of age.
I saw on the Drudge Report today that President Obama doesn’t like that there is so much access to information. Too bad that the similarity of California law to SB 1070 can be drawn out let people mull over the merit of the threatened boycott of Arizona. Somehow, I don’t think that the mainstream media, or POTUS, would be rushing to inform everyone of CA Penal Coce Sect. 834b.
[...] Read the rest. [...]
Minuteman, let’s put it this way. Juanita, an illegal immigrant, witnesses a murder. She calls the police to report it and when the police show up, they notice that she seems very uncomfortable and that her English is terrible. This could constitute “probable cause.” Upon request for her documentation, she is unable to provide evidence that she is in the country legally. She then goes to jail and/or is deported.
In California, the police officers would not demand to see her papers unless she was the person under arrest.
Although I am in favor of the Arizona bill, I fear that it may be a double-edged sword. I think it’s great that illegals will think twice about utilizing public services, but it also creates an incentive for illegals to not report violent crimes.
Mark Spizer from Phx Law Enforcement Assn testified that the Phx PD understands and has practiced in the past the policy that they PROTECT victims and witnesses in the pursuit of lawbreakers. He was quite clear on that in testimony on the bill.
That’s one agency but it gets back to any agency that has worked hard to develop good raport with Hispanics and other various communities in their jurisdiction.
The best indicator of future performance we have in this area is past performance…again, boots on the ground law enforcement was ovewhelmingly in favor of this legislation.