Post by Joe Lyddon on May 29, 2010 10:41:12 GMT -8
California immigration policy comparable to new Arizona Law
Link to main article in The Daily Bulletin, Ontario, Calif. 5-28-2010
( www.dailybulletin.com/ci_15185088 )
===============================
For the Record in case above Link turns bad:
===============================
Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/28/2010 05:39:30 PM PDT
The passage of Arizona's immigration law has brought California's immigration policy into the debate.
Similar wording in the laws have caused some experts to question the call to boycott Arizona from California cities and individuals.
Although they agree that the laws have some similarities, there tends to be disagreement on the differences in the laws.
"Everybody is trying to say that we have a law just like Arizona's law and it really isn't. It has similarities, but the differences are pretty extraordinary," said Tim Donnelly, a Republican candidate in the 59th District Assembly race and founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California.
Donnelly's biggest quarrel with the comparison of the laws is that California's policy allows police to inquire about a person's legal status and call U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Arizona's law allows police to arrest and detain a person suspected of violating a crime and who is suspected of being in the country illegally.
However, California's policy is not enforced due to political reasons, Donnelly said.
"The ICE agent might want to come down there and pick up and deport those suspected to be illegally in the country, but they're not allowed by their superiors," he said. "So that's really where the problem is, it's not with the agents in the field."
Unlike California policy, Arizona's law addresses sanctuary cities and allows citizens to sue the government for not enforcing immigration laws.
The wording of Arizona's law is much stronger than California's, which has led Jose Calderon and other Latino activists to lobby against the Arizona law.
Calderon, a professor of sociology and Chicano studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, said the way the laws are written, there is a difference between police cooperation in checking for immigration status.
"I think that's why there is such a clamor about it," Calderon said. "It allows police officers to question anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and makes it a state crime to be in the state illegally."
Lori Haley, a public affairs officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said ICE works with local law enforcement through various initiatives, but agencies tend to have their own policies.
Agencies "have their own policies and we represent that," Haley said. "We have our job to do and we do it and try to work as best we can with what the local police do."
The ICE section 287(g) program authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to allow designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has implemented the program in its jails to identify criminal illegal aliens, said Cindy Beavers, sheriff's spokesperson.
"There's a whole series of questions that are asked to every single person who is booked into our facilities and during that time their legal status in the U.S. may come into question," Beavers said.
At that point his paperwork is flagged and forwarded to an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who would interview the inmate to determine whether or not he should be taken before an immigration judge, Beavers said.
The department's implementation of 287(g) is the extent of their immigration enforcement, Beavers said.
"If we stop somebody, whether it's a traffic stop or for some criminal activity, we don't question what their immigration status is," Beavers said. "We're not immigration officers and Sheriff Hoops made that clear to all of his deputies."
Since January 2006, the program has identified more than 70,000 individuals, mostly in jails, who are suspected of being in the country illegally, according to ICE.
There are 71 active agreements to use the program and more than 1,120 officers have been trained and certified.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department does not check for immigration status while on patrol, but it does assist the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by interviewing inmates to be released from county jails, sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said.
"If they're going to be released from the county jail, we interview foreign-born inmates and give that information to ICE. It's random and it's not an exact science," Whitmore said.
However, he said that all gang members are interviewed to determine their immigration status before they are released.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has also implemented the 287(g) program in its jails.
Congressman Gary Miller, R-Brea, said the boycott of Arizona being pursued by the city of Los Angeles is hypocrtical.
"They come back to Washington, D.C., every year wanting $100 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants," he said.
"They want to go make this statement, but then want the federal government to pick up the cost of incarcerating the illegals in jails. You can't have it both ways. You want to be a sanctuary city but want the federal government to pick up the cost."
Calderon said the expansion of 287(g) in Riverside and San Bernardino counties is giving law enforcement more authority to do work that should be left to the federal government.
"There have been many instances where they've lead to arbitrary arrests for minor offenses where due process rights are violated," Calderon said.
Not only will the federal government have the ability to enforce immigration laws in Arizona, but local and state authorities will be able to, he said.
"Nowhere in the Arizona law does it define what is the criteria that you would use in terms of having reasonable suspicion to stop people - just to stop and question them on their immigration status," Calderon said. "That is really far different than what is written in the California policy and really opens it up for state and local police just to stop anyone on the suspicion of how they're dressed, language or surname."
sandra.emerson@inlandnewspapers.com
909-483-8555
COMPARING POLICIES
Experts have said California's immigration policy is similar to Arizona's new immigration law.
The following are segments from California's policy and Arizona's new law, which goes into effect in August.
California Penal Code
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.
Arizona
S.B. 1070 Sec. 2 Article 8 Enforcement of Immigration Laws
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of Federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
b. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to united states code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. a valid Arizona driver license.
2. a valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
3. a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the united states before issuance, any valid united states federal, state or local government issued identification.
Link to main article in The Daily Bulletin, Ontario, Calif. 5-28-2010
( www.dailybulletin.com/ci_15185088 )
===============================
For the Record in case above Link turns bad:
===============================
Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 05/28/2010 05:39:30 PM PDT
The passage of Arizona's immigration law has brought California's immigration policy into the debate.
Similar wording in the laws have caused some experts to question the call to boycott Arizona from California cities and individuals.
Although they agree that the laws have some similarities, there tends to be disagreement on the differences in the laws.
"Everybody is trying to say that we have a law just like Arizona's law and it really isn't. It has similarities, but the differences are pretty extraordinary," said Tim Donnelly, a Republican candidate in the 59th District Assembly race and founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California.
Donnelly's biggest quarrel with the comparison of the laws is that California's policy allows police to inquire about a person's legal status and call U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Arizona's law allows police to arrest and detain a person suspected of violating a crime and who is suspected of being in the country illegally.
However, California's policy is not enforced due to political reasons, Donnelly said.
"The ICE agent might want to come down there and pick up and deport those suspected to be illegally in the country, but they're not allowed by their superiors," he said. "So that's really where the problem is, it's not with the agents in the field."
Unlike California policy, Arizona's law addresses sanctuary cities and allows citizens to sue the government for not enforcing immigration laws.
The wording of Arizona's law is much stronger than California's, which has led Jose Calderon and other Latino activists to lobby against the Arizona law.
Calderon, a professor of sociology and Chicano studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, said the way the laws are written, there is a difference between police cooperation in checking for immigration status.
"I think that's why there is such a clamor about it," Calderon said. "It allows police officers to question anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and makes it a state crime to be in the state illegally."
Lori Haley, a public affairs officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said ICE works with local law enforcement through various initiatives, but agencies tend to have their own policies.
Agencies "have their own policies and we represent that," Haley said. "We have our job to do and we do it and try to work as best we can with what the local police do."
The ICE section 287(g) program authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to allow designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has implemented the program in its jails to identify criminal illegal aliens, said Cindy Beavers, sheriff's spokesperson.
"There's a whole series of questions that are asked to every single person who is booked into our facilities and during that time their legal status in the U.S. may come into question," Beavers said.
At that point his paperwork is flagged and forwarded to an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who would interview the inmate to determine whether or not he should be taken before an immigration judge, Beavers said.
The department's implementation of 287(g) is the extent of their immigration enforcement, Beavers said.
"If we stop somebody, whether it's a traffic stop or for some criminal activity, we don't question what their immigration status is," Beavers said. "We're not immigration officers and Sheriff Hoops made that clear to all of his deputies."
Since January 2006, the program has identified more than 70,000 individuals, mostly in jails, who are suspected of being in the country illegally, according to ICE.
There are 71 active agreements to use the program and more than 1,120 officers have been trained and certified.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department does not check for immigration status while on patrol, but it does assist the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by interviewing inmates to be released from county jails, sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said.
"If they're going to be released from the county jail, we interview foreign-born inmates and give that information to ICE. It's random and it's not an exact science," Whitmore said.
However, he said that all gang members are interviewed to determine their immigration status before they are released.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has also implemented the 287(g) program in its jails.
Congressman Gary Miller, R-Brea, said the boycott of Arizona being pursued by the city of Los Angeles is hypocrtical.
"They come back to Washington, D.C., every year wanting $100 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants," he said.
"They want to go make this statement, but then want the federal government to pick up the cost of incarcerating the illegals in jails. You can't have it both ways. You want to be a sanctuary city but want the federal government to pick up the cost."
Calderon said the expansion of 287(g) in Riverside and San Bernardino counties is giving law enforcement more authority to do work that should be left to the federal government.
"There have been many instances where they've lead to arbitrary arrests for minor offenses where due process rights are violated," Calderon said.
Not only will the federal government have the ability to enforce immigration laws in Arizona, but local and state authorities will be able to, he said.
"Nowhere in the Arizona law does it define what is the criteria that you would use in terms of having reasonable suspicion to stop people - just to stop and question them on their immigration status," Calderon said. "That is really far different than what is written in the California policy and really opens it up for state and local police just to stop anyone on the suspicion of how they're dressed, language or surname."
sandra.emerson@inlandnewspapers.com
909-483-8555
COMPARING POLICIES
Experts have said California's immigration policy is similar to Arizona's new immigration law.
The following are segments from California's policy and Arizona's new law, which goes into effect in August.
California Penal Code
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.
Arizona
S.B. 1070 Sec. 2 Article 8 Enforcement of Immigration Laws
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of Federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
b. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to united states code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. a valid Arizona driver license.
2. a valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
3. a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the united states before issuance, any valid united states federal, state or local government issued identification.