Boycott California's Racist immigartion law. They are just like Arizona's

Well looky here, Californias penal code regarding an Officers duties are very similar to Arizona's. I remember when LEO used to actually enforce these laws before the call to ignore them was thrust forth. Before they decided to allow Illegal immigrants to flood our nation with cheap labor and AZTLAN mentality. Now look at California. Bancrupt and the largest welfare provider in the nation.
The percentage of residents on welfare in the Golden State is now more than triple that of the rest of the U.S. If it reflected the rest of the country, California would have 800,000 fewer people receiving welfare.
While caseloads in the rest of the U.S. have dropped over 30% in the past five years, California’s has gone up about 6%
As a result, though it has only about 12% of the total U.S. population, California’s share of the welfare caseload has risen from 22% in 2002 to over 30%.

PENAL CODE
SECTION 833-851.90

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.

kendothegreenwizard said:

Well looky here, Californias penal code regarding an Officers duties are very similar to Arizona's. I remember when LEO used to actually enforce these laws before the call to ignore them was thrust forth. Before they decided to allow Illegal immigrants to flood our nation with cheap labor and AZTLAN mentality. Now look at California. Bancrupt and the largest welfare provider in the nation.
The percentage of residents on welfare in the Golden State is now more than triple that of the rest of the U.S. If it reflected the rest of the country, California would have 800,000 fewer people receiving welfare.
While caseloads in the rest of the U.S. have dropped over 30% in the past five years, California’s has gone up about 6%
As a result, though it has only about 12% of the total U.S. population, California’s share of the welfare caseload has risen from 22% in 2002 to over 30%.

PENAL CODE
SECTION 833-851.90

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.

Click to expand...

The laws are slightly different. The Cali law talks about someone who's already under arrest. This means the person already had a chance to prove their legal status and enough evidence is present to determine that they are not in the country legally. In ariZona cops just need reasonable suspicion to detain suspects. So just looking Mexican essentially puts you in the crosshairs.

Not the same wording, not the same spirit, and not the same legal principles are applied in the two laws. They're different.

You are incorrect about JUST LOOKING MEXICAN in respects to AZ's law. The police have to have reasonable suspicion as in no documentation to prove who you are while involved in a legal stop.
This very same law has been in place in Virginia for a couple of years without the RAMPANT profiling or racist application that so many are fear mongering about.

kendothegreenwizard said:

You are incorrect about JUST LOOKING MEXICAN in respects to AZ's law. The police have to have reasonable suspicion as in no documentation to prove who you are while involved in a legal stop.
This very same law has been in place in Virginia for a couple of years without the RAMPANT profiling or racist application that so many are fear mongering about.

Click to expand...

we talking about virginia, california or arizona??

let's make it clear. in every single state in the US LEO's have the duty to turn over any illegal alien to immigration. it's a discretionary thing...

what makes the arizona law different is REASONABLE SUSPICION. that wording REASONABLE SUSPICION.

let me write it again

REASONABLE SUSPICION

that's a few sandwiches short of the picnic called PROBABLE CAUSE.

the wording's a lot different. what they mean is different. the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is you're shit being searched.

the rights cops have are different.

for example, a cop cannot search you if he has a REASONABLE SUSPICION you're doing something fishy. he can question you. he can detain you for a reasonable amount of time. but he needs probable cause to search through you're shit.

yet in arizona it has become law that a cop MUST ask for papers if he has REASONABLE SUSPICION that somebody is in the country illegally.


look up REASONABLE SUSPICION and PROBABLE CAUSE. two different things. you don't understand the difference yet.

a cop pulls over a car because he has a REASONABLE SUSPICION the driver has been might be intoxicated, the car was swerving. the cop walks up to the window and sees 4 roaches in the ash tray. he now has PROBABLE CAUSE to search the car. he finds 4 lbs in the trunk. guy goes to jail.

same cop pulls over the same car, he has REASONABLE SUSPICION the driver might be intoxicated since the car was swerving. he walks up, no smell, no roaches, driver's eye's as white as snow. passes a sobriety test. guy gets to drive home. 4lbs in the trunk just chillin......

get the difference?????????????????????????????????????

If you can not provide id of any kind then you deserve to be grilled and arrested and all the fun stuff that goes along with it.
When i am overseas i must have my passport at all times or suffer the same thing.

Mindmelted said:

If you can not provide id of any kind then you deserve to be grilled and arrested and all the fun stuff that goes along with it.
When i am overseas i must have my passport at all times or suffer the same thing.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. ANd further Had the Federqal gov't not been totally ignoring and encouraging LEo to ignore the Immgration laws we would not be in a position where one of our states was forced to pass a law like this.

I don't think you understand the distinction between federal, state and local jurisdiction. Your local sheriff doesn't have the power to arrest you for tax violations, either. Only the IRS can do that. If the your local cops find evidence of federal tax fraud or immigration violations they can refer the matter to the IRS or ICE, but they can't go out an investigate people for suspicion of tax fraud or outstaying your visa, it's not their mandate...

You are absolutely incorrect Abe. The local police have the right to investigate Immigration status this has been established all the way to the supreme court and established as constitutional as well.
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468. 1983: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

"Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens. De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354-55, 96 S.Ct. at 935-36. The plaintiffs' reference to exclusive federal authority over immigration matters thus does not resolve this question. Instead, we must define precisely the challenged state enforcement activity to determine if "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion.

"The City's claim of authority is limited. It asserts only the power to enforce the criminal provisions of the federal immigration laws. There is nothing inherent in that specific enforcement activity that conflicts with federal regulatory interests. Federal and local enforcement have identical purposes--the prevention of the misdemeanor or felony of illegal entry. The subject matter of the regulation thus does not require us to find that state enforcement is preempted."

United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F2nd 1298. 1984: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Footnote 3 in the decision: "A state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations. Moreover, the trooper's question about the green card was reasonable under the circumstances, and thus lawful."

United States v. Vasquez- Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294. 1999: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

"In particular, the United States observes this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law. See Davida v. United States, 422 F.2d 528, 530 (10th Cir.1970); cf. United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir.1983) ("inferring, as a matter of state law] that Illinois officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests"); United States v. Swarovski, 557 F.2d 40, 43-49 (2d Cir.1977) (noting generally that there is no overarching federal impediment to arrests by state officers for violations of federal law). In fact, this court has held that state law-enforcement officers have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws."

United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

"We noted just recently that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit "have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws," and that federal law as currently written does nothing "to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws." United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1296, 1299 n.4, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). Rather, we observed that federal law "evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws." Id. at 1300."

United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611. 2001: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

"During the routine stop of a vehicle for speeding, a South Dakota highway patrol officer discovered that Manuel Rodriguez-Arreola, a passenger in the vehicle, was an illegal alien. Rodriguez was detained and later charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (Supp. IV 199 with being an illegal alien present in the United States after deportation.2 Rodriguez filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that his status as an illegal alien was discovered through questioning that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted Rodriguez's motion to suppress and the government appeals. We reverse....

"The government argues that Trooper Koltz did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Rodriguez. The government contends that the questions posed to Molina concerning his alienage were within the scope of the stop because they were based on a reasonable suspicion by Trooper Koltz.10 The government further contends that even if Trooper Koltz's questions to Molina constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure, the questions only violated Molina's Fourth Amendment rights--a violation that Rodriguez does not have standing to assert. After Molina stated that the passenger in his vehicle did not have a green card, the government argues that Trooper Koltz had reasonable suspicion to ask Rodriguez about his citizenship status. Finally, the government argues that even if Trooper Koltz's questions constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, Rodriguez's identity is not suppressible as a matter of law."

Rodriguez does not have Fourth Amendment rights to assert because he was an illegal alien.

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93. 2005 United States Supreme Court.

This case I had to look in two places. First, the Ninth Circuit Silly Circus Court of Appeals. It indicated Mena was a legal resident. It didn't state whether that was by green card, American born or otherwise, so I went to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision; here. This case involved a gang related drive by shooting.

"Aware that the West Side Locos gang was composed primarily of illegal immigrants, the officers had notified the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that they would be conducting the search, and an INS officer accompanied the officers executing the warrant. During their detention in the garage, an officer asked for each detainee's name, date of birth, place of birth, and immigration status. The INS officer later asked the detainees for their immigration documentation. Mena’s status as a permanent resident was confirmed by her papers."

The court reversed the Ninth Circuit that Mena's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court also held the officers had the right to question her citizenship status: "Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. [1]An officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search."

United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez. 2005: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

"The determination of whether investigative detention beyond the scope of the initial stop is supported by an objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity "does not depend upon any one factor but on the totality of the circumstances." Jones, 44 F.3d at 872 (citing United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548, 1555 (10th Cir. 1993). We make this determination "with deference to a trained law enforcement officer's ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances." United States v. Mendez, 118 F.3d 1426, 1431 (10th Cir. 1997). Here, while the officer was checking Mercado's license and registration, Mercado revealed that he was an illegal alien. Further detention of Mercado was therefore justified, as was the questioning of Dominguez. See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984) (stating that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations")."

More drug dealers off the streets.

Gray v City of Valley Park. 2008: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

A bit of a convoluted case where the court ruled "federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens."

I'm not a lawyer and I didn't come up with those cases. I found them on a web site for Walter Moore, an attorney with over 25 years experience. While he listed the cases, he didn't provide links, so I went and found most of them so you can see they are real. Not to doubt Moore's posting. Time is an issue for everyone, so I'm trying to help by giving you the links.

And, there is the Estrada case I mentioned in a recent column, which was decided February 10, 2010; United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Another traffic stop by a state trooper. The illegals lost again. Perhaps Ronstadt in all her brilliance also missed that decision.

We don't need another immigration "reform" bill out of Congress. Every time one is signed into law, it opens the flood gates. The laws on the books need to be enforced to the fullest by both the states and ICE. Congress can put together a simple bill calling for a moratorium on all immigration for a period of ten years. It will take that long to clean up the mess caused by the last "reform" bill signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

It's been challenged and there are some caveats but yes, the principle is that local law enforcement don't go after immigration offences without the feds. If someone commits a crime, everything changes....but immigration offenses are a federal administrative matter, not a local law enforcement issue. Because if your local cops are allowed to check on your immigration status, they could also check if you filed your federal income taxes. But that isn't their job. So they don't.

Fixing immigration is going to complicated. Giving local law enforcement jurisdiction over something the federal government is supposed to be doing isn't the solution...

abe23 said:

Giving local law enforcement jurisdiction over something the federal government is supposed to be doing isn't the solution...

Click to expand...

when the federal government fails in its duty to its citizens, it becomes necessary for the citizens themselves to pick up the slack. whether it is done at the state, local or personal level depends on just how far government's dereliction of duty goes. i'd think that a state-wide solution would be preferred to armed groups scouring the countryside to protect their property and lives.

abe23 said:

It's been challenged and there are some caveats but yes, the principle is that local law enforcement don't go after immigration offences without the feds. If someone commits a crime, everything changes....but immigration offenses are a federal administrative matter, not a local law enforcement issue. Because if your local cops are allowed to check on your immigration status, they could also check if you filed your federal income taxes. But that isn't their job. So they don't.

Fixing immigration is going to complicated. Giving local law enforcement jurisdiction over something the federal government is supposed to be doing isn't the solution...

Click to expand...

You said absolutely nothing at all except to rewind the Incorrect rhetoric you posted prior. Had you read the cases I presented you would see that in fact local LEO has the right and legal case proven precedence to check on immigration status. Once the case for immigration status has been established they can in fact hold and charge a illegal immigrant with local charges. Your comparison of the IRS statutes to immigration law is argumentum ad ignorantiam, "is a logical fallacy "
THe federal duty is the Actual Deportation of these illegals once local LEO has established cause.

undertheice said:

when the federal government fails in its duty to its citizens, it becomes necessary for the citizens themselves to pick up the slack. whether it is done at the state, local or personal level depends on just how far government's dereliction of duty goes. i'd think that a state-wide solution would be preferred to armed groups scouring the countryside to protect their property and lives.

Click to expand...

no no no no no no no no and no.

in a civilized society, the type of society that can truly bring economic development for humans, rules have to be followed.

citizens themselves CANNOT enforce the law. reason is that citizens do not know the framework of the law. that's why there's a specialized sector of the economy dedicated to law enforcement, with cops, judges, lawyers, paralegals, etc. etc. etc.

there are armed groups scouring the countryside, they're called minutemen. volunteers, standing on the border trying to do their best. and it's about as efficient as BP's attempts to block the oil spill....

condoning that citizens take the law into their own hands is dangerous and wrong.

redivider said:

no no no no no no no no and no.

in a civilized society, the type of society that can truly bring economic development for humans, rules have to be followed.

citizens themselves CANNOT enforce the law. reason is that citizens do not know the framework of the law. that's why there's a specialized sector of the economy dedicated to law enforcement, with cops, judges, lawyers, paralegals, etc. etc. etc.

there are armed groups scouring the countryside, they're called minutemen. volunteers, standing on the border trying to do their best. and it's about as efficient as BP's attempts to block the oil spill....

condoning that citizens take the law into their own hands is dangerous and wrong.

Click to expand...

When the Gov't refuses to enforce the laws then it is the duty of the citizens to demand they do so and if neccesary apply themselves to the task. The Minutemen are anly a small portion of this debacle and IMHO they are doing a great service in the fact that they draw attention to the inaction of our gov't.
If the Gov't refused to protect my family in my home I would do my level best to do so myself by any means neccesary.

redivider said:

condoning that citizens take the law into their own hands is dangerous and wrong.

Click to expand...

of course such vigilante justice shouldn't be condoned. that is why such state enforcement is necessary to keep things from degenerating to the point where the common man must take up arms himself. the federal authority has proven itself incapable of and unwilling to enforce our national sovereignty and to protect its citizens from the millions that flood across our southern border. arizona, as a border state, feels most strongly the detrimental effects of this invasion and is perfectly justified in doing what the federal government won't. the efforts of fools to handicap arizona's ability to defend itself from this tide can only lead us further toward the point at which the lawlessness of vigilantism is seen by the people as the only alternative to complete surrender.