LA City Councilman blasts AZ law for provisions in CA penal code

posted at 10:55 am on May 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Before critics of Arizona’s new immigration law make fools of themselves, they should really try to read the bill.  And if those critics are officials of other states or cities, maybe they should take a quick tour of their own laws first, too.  Kerry Picket at the Washington Times interviewed Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes, who said that he would need his passport to travel in Arizona, but she points out that the very same provisions to which Reyes objects exist in California’s own penal code:

The Los Angeles City Council’s vote to boycott Arizona caused more consternation than anything else. LA City Council members voted an overwhelming 13 – 1 to terminate any city contracts with Arizona (worth around $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 Saint Paul, Minnesota. …

“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.”

Kerry has plenty of audio within the Times article, but transcribes the key points:

PICKET: Where exactly in the law does it say that? Considering that it prohibits that? As I’m asking here, federal law which has been around for about seventy years has been saying that undocumented individuals have to be carrying papers, so what exactly has changed between federal law of the last seventy years and Arizona’s law?

REYES: What’s changed is you have a very active effort to round up people that look a certain way, and if you have proof you are an American citizen that let you go, and if you don’t they deport you. So now, that I look like a Mexican, and I am Mexican American, I become a target.(AUDIO)

PICKET: Why is this law considered any different than what has been around for the last seventy years…because it’s being enforced?

REYES: Why does a state have to call that out? Why can’t it just follow the federal law like you said for the past seventy years? (AUDIO)

Well, why does California have to call it out, Councilman Reyes?  Kerry did a little digging and found this nugget in Section 834b in the California Penal Code:

(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.

Sounds very similar to the provisions of SB 1070, the bill that prompted LA’s City Council to launch its boycott of Arizona.  Will they also now boycott their own state?  They do seem to be conducting a boycott of common sense and legal scholarship at City Hall.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If liberals collective brains turned to antimatter the explosion wouldn’t blow a gnat’s nose.

SDN on May 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Liberals are phucking stupid.

D2Boston on May 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM

And blindly arrogant as they think they can pick and chose which laws to obey and ignore the rest. Categorically they do not believe in the ‘rule of law’ and are therefore the enemy of civilization.

docdave on May 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM

I’m glad you poor frozen tundra people don’t live here in Socal,we already have enough trash to clean up here. Wanna boycott California? Go ahead, we’ll close the ports, no more Walmart stuff for you…… in all reality why would you blame people who DON’T Vote for L.A. anything, don’t even live near that dive,why hammer us.We carry guns just like you,
Bob

Bobnormal on May 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM

They do seem to be conducting a boycott of common sense and legal scholarship at City Hall.

Because people like Reyes are PANDERING to La Raza. Reyes is one of those responsible for the fact LA is now a 3rd world city.

GarandFan on May 17, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Bobnormal on May 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Bob, you’ve got to keep up. All California people are stupid evil liberals because of the L.A. City Council’s vote, just like all Minnesotans are stupid evil liberals because 45% of them voted for Al Franken.

Please. I know this is new logic, but you can follow it if you try.

/sarc (in case the tag is needed)

notropis on May 17, 2010 at 1:01 PM

The rest of the country doesn’t have to boycott Kalifornia, Businesses and taxpayers are doing it for us. They are leaving in a mass migration to Capitalist States.

wheelgun on May 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM

notropis on May 17, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Now I get it,HA is actually a left wing undercover op designed to get all of us Conservatives fighting each other,
You guys stay warm and I’ll stay cool, until it all falls apart,then we can kiss and make up,/Snark
Bob

Bobnormal on May 17, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Not all morons are liberals, however, all liberals are morons. They distinguish themselves time after time…..

ultracon on May 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Liberals are phucking stupid.

D2Boston on May 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Yeah, but as long as they are both consenting adults…..ya know.

A teacher told me that they have a saying in education…’If you can’t read, you can still breed.’

PappaMac on May 17, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Bobnormal on May 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM

You all need to pick saner people to represent you. Giving Sacramento a liberal enema would be a good start.

docdave on May 17, 2010 at 1:24 PM

They do seem to be conducting a boycott of common sense and legal scholarship at City Hall.

Ignorant pandering. For liberals that’s a feature, not a bug.

SKYFOX on May 17, 2010 at 1:26 PM

As the Dems say, I vote early and often, and I live in a pretty Redstate area,So my vote isn’t totally wasted,here’s the true outcome,
June 6 Poizner, Devore,
Nov, Whitman, Fiorina,

Principle first, party second,that’s why we have primaries yes?
Bob

Bobnormal on May 17, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Making what they think is political hay and liberals always use race to do it. So far race has been a dependable trouble maker for them. The collateral divisive damage that does seems not to bother them. They just think they’re so cool and clever. It’s all votes, votes votes even our so called President who’s office should know better.

jeanie on May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Making what they think is political hay and liberals always use race to do it. So far race has been a dependable trouble maker for them. The collateral divisive damage that does seems not to bother them. They just think they’re so cool and clever. It’s all votes, votes votes even our so called President who’s office should know better.

jeanie on May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Obama and Holder are the worst of the bunch. It’s illegal for any US State to boycott or disrupt the commerce of another. DOJ should call out anyone attempting this crap

elclynn on May 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM

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.”

That’s right Councilman Reyes, it is not American. Why, it is not even Arizonian. No state can deport anyone (tempting as that might be). And as for the deportation procedure employed by the federal government, summarily is a description no one capable of reading the Code of Federal Regulations is apt to use.

Barnestormer on May 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Liberal hipocrisy at it’s finest.

Dominion on May 17, 2010 at 2:14 PM

DUDE! Somebody wake me when all this BS is over.

NTWR on May 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM

As a native Southern Californian, this tool (Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes) offends me…

Khun Joe on May 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM

The LA city councilman should be glad at AZ didn’t cite the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution:

Section 10.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The Arizonans could have simply opted to Constitutionally wage war upon the invasion through their border.

They went for a milder solution, and merely matched the Federal Law~ going STUDIOUSLY unenforced~ to try to tweak the Congressional cowards into defending our nation BY SECURING OUR BORDERS.

profitsbeard on May 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM

You have to give these(Mexican Americans) his words a break.

They are products of the CA public education and they never learned to read or write(at least in English) good gold comedy though.

Also the nutjobs that say all border states are really part of Mexico, if they were where would they be going? Dumb and Dumber. Seal rhe borders and DEPORT.

concernedsenior on May 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I’m glad you poor frozen tundra people don’t live here in Socal,we already have enough trash to clean up here. Wanna boycott California? Go ahead, we’ll close the ports, no more Walmart stuff for you…… in all reality why would you blame people who DON’T Vote for L.A. anything, don’t even live near that dive,why hammer us.We carry guns just like you,
Bob

Bob we don’t need to worry about ever since the strike by the ILWU at the CA Ports more and more freight is coming via East Coast Ports – was a good ploy but again like every union strike it back fired. All it cost was about 25 of my employees at the rail head wher ewe received the Walmart Stuff. It jus tnow goes to the ports in NY/NJ/SAV/JAX. Thanks for the jobs at those ports. CA is full of idiots.

igglesphan on May 17, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Bobnormal on May 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM

I presume you’ve heard of places like Alliance Airport and Port San Antonio, right? Nice big cargo planes drop off all sorts of Asian goods for WalMart and Target. And don’t forget the Panama Canal expansion underway. Once done, the Port of Houston is likely to overtake L.A./Long Beach in terms of container cargo handled.

Sorry to say it, but California needs the rest of this nation more than the nation needs California.

BradSchwartze on May 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

profitsbeard, touché.

maverick muse on May 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Before critics of Arizona’s new immigration law make fools of themselves, they should really try to read the bill.

“Reading Is Fundamental”–the criticism I’ve laid at Ed Morrissey for his sloppily prepared progressive PC apologist knee-jerk reaction vs. Constitutional Constructionism on the AZ law written to match federal law verbatim.

So Ed took the time finally to either read it himself or at least TALK with someone who talked with someone who read it.

Hey, Ed, still avoiding acknowledging publicly where to find accurate legal responses to current events? The Fred Thompson Show puts most of us in the know that much sooner. At least browse through Thompson’s audio archives since you procrastinate any original source research.

maverick muse on May 17, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Reyes is typical of the clueless morons that L.A. voters choose. Take Reyes’ stupidity, multiply it by several million, and you have L.A. It might as well be the capital of Baja California now, fast becoming a third-world shithole.

infidel4life on May 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Democratic legislators, at every governmental level, do not believe that the text of any bill, already on the books or up for a vote, makes any difference. They will do what they want regardless of the language of the law, and the media will cover for them.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Register La Raza with big sis as a possible troublesome group.

Col.John Wm. Reed on May 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Will they also now boycott their own state?

Of course not. If you look at what the bill actually says (rather than the made up stories of its detractors) you come to the clear conclusion that the main difference between the CA law and the AZ law is that AZ actually means it.

The Monster on May 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Psssssst Bob-NOT-so-normal….

I’m glad you poor frozen tundra people don’t live here in Socal,we already have enough trash to clean up here. Wanna boycott California? Go ahead, we’ll close the ports, no more Walmart stuff for you

This is hilarious on it’s face.

“L.A.” need only glance to the south to see their fate.

When that ocean port in MX opens Long Beach will become a friggin ghost town………..

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/root+level/1278366

Katfish on May 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM

(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.

Highlighted above is the money quote part of the law! Clearly according to the above the states, counties, and cities that have deemed themselves “sanctuary cities” are in clear violation of federal law. So where is Obama and Holder on this? Instead of enforcing our immigration laws and holding those states, counties, and cities accountable for usurping federal law all they do is talk out of their azzes on how raaaccciiiisssttt the AZ law is!

I find it laughable (but not surprising) that these sanctuary cities that are all up in arms about Arizona’s new law keep crying foul and repeatedly remark that Arizona is some usurping federal law when the plain truth and fact of the matter Arizona’s law is less stringent than the federal illegal immigration law and the mere act of these cities providing sanctuary for ILLEGAL immigrants is as the statute clearly states is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED!

Typical lefty liberals, how important the rule of law and order is to them depends on if they agree with the law or not…HYPOCRITE, THY NAME IF LEFTY LIBERAL!

Liberty or Death on May 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Kerry Picket at the Washington Times interviewed Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes, who said that he would need his passport to travel in Arizona, but she points out that the very same provisions to which Reyes objects exist in California’s own penal code:

Heh, I noted this awhile back.

I guess Mr. Holder won’t like California’s law:

California Penal Code Section 834b
BDU-33 on May 14, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Ed Morrissey, historically California ONLY closes its borders to other Americans.Let Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes explain that.

BDU-33 on May 17, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Katfish – AND there is the little business of Mexico upgrading the port at Lazaro Cardenas on the Pacific. It’s already Mexico’s biggest Pacific port. The big deal here is that this port ties directly into the rail network to Dallas, Kansas City and Chicago and to the main highway system for trucks heading to Laredo.

Soon there will be no need to deal with the pesky union longshoremen in California at all. The costs of shipping to the US will fall quite a bit with the union “help” out of the way.

sdillard on May 17, 2010 at 6:05 PM

This phony probably hasn’t read the law!
Did this idiot read the report of people from the Middle East, from Africa, from Afghanistan, routing through Mexico and coming across the border?
Probably not!

SECURE THE BORDERS!

SECURE OUR PRECIOUS COUNTRY AGAINST THESE INVADERS!!

Mark7788 on May 17, 2010 at 10:48 PM

So many liberals; sooooooo much stupidity. Question for councilman Reyes: When California files for bankrupsty and needs a bailout, are Arizona taxpayers exempt from paying??!

TN Mom on May 18, 2010 at 12:03 AM

I have been to Sedona several times, and highly recommend visiting there, as it is beautiful.
silvernana on May 17, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Go to Bisbee sometime, an old mining town that was nearly a ghost town after the mines closed down…sit on the patio of The Copper Queen Hotel, sip a Dave’s Electric Ale and watch the sun set behind the Mule Mountains.

The_Basseteer on May 18, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Sanctuary Cities Defy the Law, Can we get real? A “santuary” city who makes its own rules has violated not only its own state laws, but also the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Let the existing laws and PENALITIES apply to those who have chosen to violate the law. This is what THEY have always been afraid of. That enough attention will be brought upon them that they will be subject to the law. Their response? Boycott those who have brought the attention their way. My response? Boycott those who have chosen to ignore the rule of law. And make them pay the PENALITIES for their violations. Perhaps that would get their attention.

Netclimber on May 18, 2010 at 4:00 AM

My apologies. The link I wanted send was http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/16/121607.shtml A “sanctuary city” has laid its own path …

Netclimber on May 18, 2010 at 4:45 AM

Dear Ed:

I really wish I knew where you live. If I did, I would go and stay in your backyard for a few days, deficate on your back porch, kill your dog and then insist that you bring me in to feed me and give me your clothes.

That’s what you seem to want Ed.

Mr. Grump on May 18, 2010 at 5:56 AM

Sorry. I meant Ed Reyes, not Morrisey

Mr. Grump on May 18, 2010 at 5:58 AM

What the brainwashed lemmings that worship The One must understand is when the POTUS declares war on an individual state for doing what the POTUS refuses to do by the oath he took, he declares war on all of the states. The United States has taken on tyrants much worse than Obuma the Great. We will win this time too.

volsense on May 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM

when the POTUS declares war on an individual state for doing what the POTUS refuses to do by the oath he took, he declares war on all of the states.

volsense on May 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Excellent observation. The message from Dear Leader is “I won. I’M in charge now. You piddly-ass states answer to ME now.” The same disrespectful hubris he showed to SCOTUS during the SOTU speech. Most arrogant president ever.

infidel4life on May 18, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I have an answer for Jug Ears and his filthy minions:

[one finger salute]

platypus on May 18, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Psssssst Bob-NOT-so-normal….

I’m glad you poor frozen tundra people don’t live here in Socal,we already have enough trash to clean up here. Wanna boycott California? Go ahead, we’ll close the ports, no more Walmart stuff for you

This is hilarious on it’s face.

“L.A.” need only glance to the south to see their fate.

When that ocean port in MX opens Long Beach will become a friggin ghost town………..

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/root+level/1278366

Katfish on May 17, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Being in the trucking industry, we’ve known about this for a couple of years. Congestion my azz, the multimode rail yards off of Washington are dang near empty. The real issue is The Port Authority and the enviro nazis have regulated the port (and my business) into destruction. If you don’t have a new “clean” truck(and by new I mean meets Today’s emissions standards), you can’t pick up a load from the port. They’re also trying to prevent ships from running their internal generators while in port with emissions regulations and force them to hook up to shore power.

Fighton03 on May 18, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Some of the dots remain disconnected, but CA 843b appears to be an offspring of the “contentious” 1994 California Proposition 187. Prop 187 (aka “Save Our State”) passed 59%-41%.

That proposition was challenged and was ultimately squelched in court, or so it appeared.

But here it stands — as Prop 187 implemented.

desertdweller on May 31, 2010 at 7:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2