CA & AZ immigration law about the same


<--- Pic is not me
Jan 23, 2010
Reaction score
Cincinnati, OH
Well well well...

Calif. penal code pertaining to immigration similar to Ariz.'s SB 1070 - Water Cooler - Washington Times
By Kerry Picket on May 15, 2010

The Los Angeles City Council's vote to boycott Arizona caused more consternation than anything else. L.A. City Council members voted an overwhelming 13-1 to terminate any city contracts with Arizona (worth about $7.7 million) as did other American cities who have considered resolutions to protest the Arizona law or seek boycotts. Among these cities are San Francisco and St. Paul, Minn.

The lone dissenter on the council, Republican Greig Smith, said in an e-mail statement:

"The Hahn motion is not in the economic best interests of the City of Los Angeles. I have always opposed using the Los Angeles City Council to weigh in on non-related social issues that are not within the purview of Los Angeles. I voted no on the motion to boycott Arizona."
Wow. OK there was a voice of sanity in La La Land. But there was also the voice of... well this guy...

"I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport," Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, a Democrat, said before the vote. "If I come across an officer who's had a bad day and feels the picture on my ID is not me, I could be summarily deported -- no questions asked. That is not American."
Oh really? I interviewed Mr. Reyes (ENTIRE AUDIO INTERVIEW) on Friday about his thinking on Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070. While Mr. Reyes insisted he read the 16-page law and is aware that the law prohibits law enforcement officers from asking individuals their legal status based on their race, national origin, and color, he said that the law would not stop law enforcement officers from racially profiling anyway.
Link to audio interview:

Lets see if we can't follow the argument of Mr. Reyes. He thinks it's wrong to ask of someone, already legaly detained, weather or not they have broken additional laws in reguard to their immigration, because the fears the police may not follow the law.

Picket also speaks with Becca Doten, who is the communications director for LACC Richard Alarcon (a democrat). While he "doesn't believe that Arizona Police are inherently racist" he does not think they are capable of doing the job due to poor training. This begs the question, what kind of traning do the California police get, who also may not be inherently racist one hopes, in reguards to California immigration law. Why?

Here is "the kicker" as they day... they are stikingly similar:
CA Codes (pen:833-851.90)

California Penal Code 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
(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

The Los Angeles City Council and cities currently boycotting Arizona might want to re-examine their own immigration laws before they start nitpicking at others.
Should we be laughing or crying at this point? Is Arizona worse than California, thus deserving of boycotts, for no better reason than they intend to enforce the law. How long before President Obama goes on TV to call California immigration law "misguided"? Maybe he does not have to because illegal immigrants in Cali are walking around listning to "I fought the law, and the law gave up" on their Ipods.

Or maybe, just maybe... the Arizona law, similar as it is to most others, is just an excuse for political grandstanding, the PC police and the rest of the noise machine. Something Obama himself might call, "a distraction".


<--- Pic is not me
Jan 23, 2010
Reaction score
Cincinnati, OH
SAN FRANCISCO / City is sued for failing to report noncitizens arrested for drugs / Activist contends police are breaking California law - SFGate

Part of the Washington Times article noted the case of Charles Fonseca, "a 70-year-old Portola district resident who came to the United States from Nicaragua at the age of 9 and filed the lawsuit May 4 (2007), said he opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially those who break the law after they get here." the link is above. There was no follow up in the article from my OP so I will note some additional information below.

Fonseca v. Fong | Judicial Watch

This Judicial Watch lawsuit is on behalf of a San Francisco resident challenging a "sanctuary policy" of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) for illegal immigrants. Contrary to California law, the SFPD prohibited police officers from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest a person for various drug offenses whom they suspect may be an alien (legal or illegal). In response, the SFPD argued that the California statute (Health & Safety Code § 11369) requiring the sharing of such information with federal authorities is unconstitutional and, therefore, the SFPD was not bound to obey the law.

The case was heard before the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two (Case No. A120206). Oral argument was held in San Francisco on September 16, 2008.
yadda yadda yadda

As a result of the appellate court ruling, San Francisco is required to end its sanctuary policy that protects aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE.
That sounds not entirly unlike whats going on in Arizona legal thinking these days.

"This landmark ruling strikes at the heart of the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are not above the law. This court ruling exposes the lie behind the argument that state and local law enforcement cannot help enforce immigration laws," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
Following the above will lead to additional links but only going as far as late October of 2008. I'm not sure of further developments but to that time at least, the similarity of California and Arizona legal thinking remains.
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List