Anchor Babies and the 14th Amendment...

You know, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were enacted as part of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, to guarantee that "Negroes" (as African-Americans were then known) could never again be slaves (13th Amendment, ratified in 1865), would be recognized as full-fledged citizens (14th Amendment, ratified in 1868), and could not be denied the right to vote based upon race (15th Amendment, ratified in 1870).

The 13th Amendment was simple, two sentences. It abolished slavery.

The 14th Amendment was a little more far-reaching, but the current controversy about "anchor babies" revolves around Section 1, which simply states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The primary purpose of Section 1 was to guarantee the citizenship of African-Americans who were born here, yet denied rights as citizens because of their race and their former status as slaves. In 1857, the United States Supreme Court, in the shameful Dred Scott Decision, held that African slaves and their descendants within the United States were NOT protected by the Constitution and could NEVER become citizens. The court also ruled that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court and that slaves, as the private property of their owners, could not be taken from their owners without due process.

Essentially, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment overturned much of the Dred Scott Decision and codified into law that former slaves and their descendants were citizens by birth and guaranteed them that citizenship and the rights that go with it.

It was never intended as "the anchor baby" Amendment; it was early civil rights legislation, enacted just after the Civil War.

Sixteen years after it was ratified, in 1884, the Supreme Court visited the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that American Indians who voluntarily quit their tribes did NOT automatically become U.S. citizens, even though they were born on American soil.

The "anchor baby" issue was a non-issue until 30 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified when the Supreme Court (the same Supreme Court that had ruled 41 years earlier that African-Americans could NEVER become U.S. citizens) re-visited the 14th Amendment.

First, some history that led to this second visit by the Supreme Court to the issue of the 14th Amendment.

In 1882, in a blatantly racist move, the United States Congress had enacted the "Chinese Exclusion Act" which prohibited Chinese from coming here or becoming naturalized citizens. It allowed Chinese who were already here to stay, but denied naturalization to them. Additionally, if they left the United States, they could not return. This law was challenged and, ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court.

Interpreting Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in 1898, that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants were citizens because they had been born on U.S. soil. No distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was ever made at the time.

No subsequent court cases have EVER decided whether or not the children of legal or illegal immigrants are or are not citizens, under the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, intended to guarantee rights to African-Americans, has been bastardized by those who interpret the Amendment's original intent to include automatic citizenship to anyone born here.

This is insane.

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment,

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The original author's intent seems pretty clear here -- the law wasn't intended to automatically extend citizenship to persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, family members of ambassadors, or diplomats.

Let's say that I have a fictional wife, and that my fictional wife is fictionally pregnant. We are visiting England, and my fictitional wife goes into labor and our fictional child is born there. That fictional child would NOT be a British citizen; he or she would be an American citizen, born to American parents, in Great Britain.

Perhaps it is time for the Supreme Court to visit, yet again, the issue of the 14th Amendment and settle the issue, once and for all.

In the meantime, a proposed California iniative, the California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010, Initiative 09-0010, has been introduced to try and rectify the situation, by limiting and/or eliminating public benefits to illegal alien mothers and their children. While to some this may seem draconian, it is based upon existing law in five other states -- Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Arizona, and is closely patterned after the existing Oklahoma law. The California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010 has recently begun the signature collection process to qualify it for the ballot.

Ted Hayes, the African-American activist and advocate for the homeless who unsuccessfully ran against Congresswoman Maxine Waters in 2008, a supporter of the proposed iniative, says it best:

American black men will stop the birth tourism problem connected to the 14th Amendment.

That law was meant for West African slaves, not Latinos crossing the border illegally.

Hayes adds, referring to the ballot iniative,

The Latinos want to make this about race. I’ll make this about race. The sponsors of this bill are not racists, they’re Americans and we stand with them.

Former U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez, a supporter of the ballot iniative, correctly notes,

The 14th Amendment was a way for this country to overcome slavery. Our current national policy doesn’t even allow diplomats in this country to gain citizenship through birth.

Isn't it time for this gross mis-interpretation/mis-application (IMO) of the 14th Amendment to either be ended, once and for all, or upheld by the Supreme Court?

Something for the ponder...

Skip

On Illegal Aliens...

"Patty," from New York City, a very nice woman and a member of the online quit-smoking forum that I've belonged to for the past three years, posted yesterday, in a political thread concerning Arizona and that state's battle with the federal government over controlling our border with Mexico:

Actually, I think it should be made easier for people to GET green cards & citizenship - that would get them into the system and would stop a lot of the problems. I tutor Latinos ... many of them are illegal (we don't ask). They want to learn English & get a better job. I don't think they WANT to be illegal ... it's just that they have no choice (other than to not come here, and many of them don't see that as an option - there is work here, and there is no work where they come from).

I replied:


I can't agree with rewarding people whose first act in entering the country illegally happened to have been...

Illegal.

There are millions of people all over the planet who want to come to the United States and are IN LINE, going through the process LEGALLY.

To reward the millions of illegal aliens we have in the country is a slap in the face to all who have emigrated here legally.

My Mother was one of them. She emigrated here with her family, legally, from Nova Scotia, Canada, and, after waiting a prescribed amount of time, studying the American Constitution and American history, and passing examinations on what she had learned, she proudly became a naturalized citizen. December 8, 1941. Coincidentally, the day after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

My late friend, Fred, was another. British by birth, he met and married an American girl. He applied to become an American citizen. Well over two years later, after having played by the rules, Fred became an American.

Nationally, unemployment hovers at just under 10% (it is really well over 20%, when one considers the "underemployed," those who have simply given up, and those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits (who are therefore, in some warped kind of Washington-think, no longer counted as "unemployed")).

Perhaps we differ in opinion because you are in New York, Patty, and you "...tutor Latinos ... many of them are illegal (we don't ask)," while I am in Southern California and have had to witness and deal with those illegal aliens and the havoc they've wrought upon our school systems, healthcare systems, neighborhood crime, prison/jail systems, and how they've depressed wages in nearly every industry here in the formerly "Golden State" for my entire life. Nine months ago, there was a Mexican gang-related shooting across the street from my house...

The Sheriff arrested... you guessed it... an illegal alien for the shooting. The shooting victim, also an illegal alien, went to the hospital in serious condition, costing taxpayers goodness-knows how much for his hospitalization and care.

What is needed, IMHO, is to enforce the employer sanctions that were part of President Reagan's amnesty package from 1986. Employer sanctions, ignored since those days when Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill into law, need to be stiffened. Fine employers $10,000 for every illegal alien they are found to have hired. Charge them with felonies for second and subsequent offenses. The job market for illegal aliens would dry up and the majority of them will "self-deport."

Obama and his minions need to STOP playing political football with the serious business of the nation's security. Lest you think this is just an Obama-bash, I detested George W. Bush's "wink and a nod open border policy," as well.

I'm afraid that it's only a matter of time before some really bad people cross that border with some really evil intentions and our government will have been looking the other way, ignoring one of its core responsibilities as enumerated in the Constitution.

Here in cash-strapped California, the cost of our 2.6 MILLION illegal ailens that legal taxpayers have to shoulder is pegged at $21.8 BILLION dollars this year (more than our $19 billion budget deficit).

New York state is facing something like a $6.8 billion budget deficit this year, with Governor Paterson slashing things left and right to try and make ends meet; illegal aliens cost New York state $9.5 billion this year. Without the burden of illegal aliens, New York could be enjoying, even in these troubled economic times, a budget SURPLUS of $2.7 billion this year.

Control of our southern border must come first, before our elected "leaders" even consider extending any type of amnesty to the millions of illegal alien lawbreakers in our country. This is only fair to a.) American citizens, b.) those who want to become American citizens and who are playing by the rules to achieve that end, and c.) all American taxpayers, citizens or not, who, this year alone, are paying $113 BILLION in services to illegal aliens.

Just my $ 0.02
 


I thought surely that I would be assailed by the left-wing members of that online community, as so often happens when a conservative dares to express an opinion.

The "usual suspects" were... oddly silent.

Instead, I received many positive replies.  Perhaps there is hope, now that the majority of the country is waking up to the consequences of the 2008 elections.

Skip

Why is it...

...that those on the left can be so shrill, so obnoxious, so downright nasty?

Is it that they are so self-righteous -- and so unabashedly secure in their beliefs in both socialism and their socialist President -- that they, mindlessly spinning in their own orbits, think they tower head and shoulders above those who don't share their beliefs?

Or...

Is it simply that they are panicking because this "hopey/changey thing" hasn't turned out to be quite what their Messiah promised and that mainstream America is waking up to that fact with a huge case of collective buyers' remorse and is about to make the first of two major course corrections this coming November?


Witness alleged "comedienne" (and I use the term loosely) Stephanie Miller who simply MUST throw the disgusting term, "teabaggers" into the conversation and CBS "news contributor" Nancy Giles barking at St. Louis Tea Party co-founder Dana Loesch, "I'm talking, so shut your mouth" and then going on to rant about "Tea Party racism."

Disgusting.

Full-screen the video to get the full effect.

(sorry about the commercial at the beginning -- it is CNN, after all...)



The bottom line -- if you don't care for the the direction that our socialist President and his fellow travelers in the United States Congress are heading and you somehow express your dissatisfaction...

You're a raaaaaaaaaaaaacist.

The "racist card" has been played so often by these people (who seem to have nothing else left in their once formidable arsenal) that it's become so tattered and frayed that we see it coming from miles away.

November, or never...

Skip

Stuck On Stupid, Race-baiting, Excusing A Racist, and Re-writing History...

The mind-numbing idiocy all too frequently on display by some of our "leaders" can be tryly stupefying...

1.  Stuck On Stupid ~ 

None other than Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX):



Memo to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee:

There are NOT "two Vietnams."  There is NO "North" and "South" Vietnam these days, and there hasn't been since your Democrat predecessors cut off funding to both the United States' war effort and to our then-allies, the Republic of South Vietnam, back in 1975.  Abandoned by the United States, the Republic of South Vietnam fell to the communist North Vietnamese that very year, resulting in the former North and South Vietnam merging into one communist nation, officially known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

How in the world can voters be so obtuse that they continue to re-elect nitwits like this to positions of power and "leadership."  Were I a Texan, I'd be embarrassed.  Hell... I'm a Californian, and this empty-headed dipstick embarrasses me.  It's almost painful watching her demonstrate her ignorance.


2.  Race-baiting ~

None other than...

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee --

...again. 

When last we saw this nitwit, she was making a fool of herself on the floor of the House of Representatives.  In an attempt to out-do her "nitwittery," we now find her jumping aboard "the Tea Party is racist bandwagon" at the just-concluded NAACP convention in Kansas City (side note: Isn't the very name of the NAACP -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- racist?), where she issued the following gem, comparing members of the Tea Party movement to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK):

… And I thank you professor very much. I’m going to be engaging you with those very powerful numbers that you have offered on what the tea party recognizes, uh, or is recognized as. Might I add my own P.S.? All those who wore sheets a long time ago have now lifted them off and started wearing...

[applause]

...uh, clothing, uh, with a name, say, I am part of the Tea Party.  Don't you be fooled. 

[voices: "That's right." more applause]

Those who used to wear sheets are now being able to walk down the aisle and speak as a patriot because you will not speak loudly about the lack of integrity of this movement. Don’t let anybody tell you that those who spit on us as we were walking to vote on a health care bill for all of America or those who said Congresswoman Jackson-Lee’s braids were too tight in her hair had anything to do with justice and equality and empowerment of the American people. Don’t let them fool you on that

[applause]….

Too bad the media ignores (and the schools don't teach...) the fact that the KKK was launched by, populated by, and a haven for, the Democrats, initially because they were unhappy about Republican President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, eh?  The media (and textbooks) also conveniently ignore the fact that the KKK remained a Democrat "institution" in the South for the next one hundred years.




3.  Excusing A Racist ~

The recently-deceased, longest-serving-Senator in U.S. history, Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) started his own chapter of the KKK in the early 1940s, became a "Kleagle" (recruiter) and, ultimately, and was unanimously elected to the position of "Exalted Cyclops" of his local Klan "unit."

At Byrd's memorial service, former President Bill Clinton, glossing over Byrd's affiliation with the Klan, eulogized,

I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, he was trying to get elected," Clinton said. "And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that's what a good person does.

An interesting take.  If Byrd joined the Klan because he was "...trying to get elected," why was he a member of it for all of those years prior to being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952?

Oh.

That's right.

Byrd was a Democrat.

Nothing to see here, folks.  Move along...


4.  Re-writing History ~

A tale of two passings --

The headlines of the passings of two racist Senators -- one Democrat, the other Republican -- by the New York Times, America's self-proclaimed "newspaper of record," is quite telling -- when Democrat Byrd recently passed away, the Times' headline was:

Robert Byrd, Respected Voice of the Senate, Dies at 92

When 100 year old Republican Senator, Strom Thurmond, passed away in 2003, the Times' headline read:

Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100

Media bias, anyone?  Ya think?

 
And, how do the history re-writers defend the following from a letter written by Byrd to segregationist Senator, Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) in 1944:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Or this, from 1947 correspondence by Byrd to Dr. Samuel Green, Grand Wizard of the KKK, in which he (Byrd) recommended a friend as a "Kleagle," urged promotion of the Klan throughout the nation, and wrote:

The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.

Byrd hated Martin Luther King, suggesting to the FBI in early 1968 that he (Byrd) could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate and adding that it was time that Dr. King...

...met his Waterloo.

Imagine, if you will, that documentation was unearthed that a Republican had written or proposed such things...

The media's silence is, and has been, deafening.

The history re-writers don't defend Byrd's "...never fight... with a Negro by my side," his "...race mongrels" reference, his call for the "...rebirth of the Klan," or his "...time for Dr. King to meet his Waterloo" comments; they simply ignore them.


Byrd even filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  He voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968, however, as he came to the realization that he would have to temper his segregationist views if he wanted to achieve prominence nationally.  He claimed that he'd previously viewed segregation as a "states' rights" issue but now, as a Baptist, he saw the errors of his ways.

To this day, the late Republican Senator, Barry Goldwater, is vilified for having voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the media is oddly silent about the fact that Byrd, likewise, voted against that landmark legislation.  In the 1950s and early 1960s, Goldwater had a strong
pro-civil rights record that included working with the Arizona NAACP to desegregate the Arizona school system. He was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act solely on Constitutional grounds, because he felt it was an overreaching of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and an abridgement of the 10th Amendment.


Goldwater was a Constitutionalist.

Byrd's reason for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Byrd was simply a racist.  But, as a Democrat, he got, and continues to get, even in death, a pass.

During his 14 hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Byrd quoted from a book called The Mind of Primitive Man, by Franz Boas (sometimes referred to as Frank Boaz), in which Boas wrote that white people’s brains weighed a few grams more than black people’s brains, and that whites were therefore more intelligent.  Byrd also claimed during his filibuster that the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for their words about all men being "created equal" to be taken literally because the Founders must have understood that all men are not created equal; that the dark-skinned man is inferior.  Byrd even quoted Leviticus, in the Bible, in an attempt to justify his racist stand on segregation:

"In Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 19, we find the words: ‘Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow they field with mingled seed.’ God’s statutes, therefore, recognize the natural order of the separateness of things."

Again, imagine that some Republican was spouting or had spouted this kind of crap on the floor of the United States Senate... In death, do you suppose for a second that the New York Times would refer to such an imaginary Republican racist as the "Respected Voice of the Senate" in a headline? The mind boggles...


Recapping -- Goldwater was a Constitutionalist, Byrd was a segregationist/racist.  Yet, history has now been re-written to teach that Byrd was a Constitutionalist; a Constitutional scholar, and that Goldwater was merely an eeeeeeevil racist.

You won't be hearing about any of this on the evening news, or reading about it in "America's newspaper of record" any time soon.

Robert Byrd lived a long and full life.  He brought home so much pork that it seems like most of the public works projects in West Virginia were named for him before he was even dead.  As noted, he was the longest-serving Senator in U.S. history.  But... he was a racist bastard whose history of racism, solely because of the fact that he was a Democrat, is ignored by his "fellow travellers" on the left and their water-carriers in the "mainstream" media.

Skip

A Milestone...

Today marks a milestone that I just want to gloat a little about --

Pride may be one of the seven deadly sins but, in this case, I hope I am forgiven because I am proud to shout from the rooftops that:

As of today, I have been smoke, tobacco, and nicotine free for three years.

Yaaaaaaaay, me! 

Had someone told me three years plus one day ago that I would quit smoking, I would've thought them insane.  I'd smoked 2 - 2-1/2 packs a day for the better part of 40 years and the addict within had successfully rationalized/fooled me into believing that, since quitting smoking would be impossible, it would be stupid to even try.

God!  I hate the addiction; I detest the nicodemon.

I "accidentally" quit smoking July 15, 2007.  I say "accidentally" because I had no intention whatsoever of stopping smoking.  In fact, two days before, Friday, July 13, I had just purchased my weekly two cartons of cigarettes at Costco.

I awakened on Saturday with, out of the clear blue, what was one of the worst colds I'd experienced since childhood.  Coughing, chest congested, sore throat, fever, aches in body parts I didn't know even existed...

As always when I would get a cold, I'd continue smoking, only less because, a.) they tasted even crappier than usual and, b.) they made me cough and hack.  So it was on that Saturday.  I coughed and choked my way through probably 6-10 cigarettes over the course of that day and finally just went back to sleep.  Woke up Sunday and started the same routine all over again -- light a cigarette, inhale, cough and hack and wheeze.  Finally, at about 12:15 that afternoon, I ground out what was to be the last cigarette I would ever smoke.  For the rest of the day and into the evening, every time I'd want a cigarette, I'd tell myself, "later," because I was feeling so poorly.

The next day (Monday), even though really sick, I went to work.  Took my normal two packs of cigarettes and my lighter in with me and put them in their usual place.  Whenever I'd want a cigarette, I'd tell myself, "later," as I had done on Sunday.  I got through the work day and both of my packages of cigarettes were still unopened.  I marveled that it had been over 28 hours since I'd smoked a cigarette, and half-heartedly thought about "just seeing how long I could go without one."  I went home, leaving the cigarettes and lighter in my car.

Maybe God was guiding my thoughts because, when it dawned on me to avail myself of this wonderful resource called "the Internet" regarding smoking cessation, for some reason I searched on the words "nicotine addiction" rather than "quit smoking" or "quitting smoking."

I came across a marvelous informational/educational site called whyquit.com.

One of the first things that I learned there is that nicotine is flushed from the body 72 hours after smoking cessation.  Surprised by this, I realized that I was already over one third of the way to being nicotine-free, from a physiological standpoint at least.

Thus began my journey.  Education was KEY.  Education about the insidious nature of the addiction to nicotine, and how to overcome it; how to defeat it.

I found other great educational resources online, and voraciously read what they had to offer.

Thirty two days into what was still a very shaky "stop" smoking effort (I didn't dare to even think the words "quit smoking," much less say them, because the addict within still had me convinced that my not smoking was just a temporary thing and that, when I ultimately resumed smoking, it would somehow seem less hypocritical for me to be able to rationalize, "...well, it's not like I QUIT or anything; I only STOPPED.") I stumbled upon a wonderful quit smoking support group.  I lurked and read there for a couple of weeks and finally registered on September 1, 2007.

One of the first things that an "old-timer" there told me was that, while difficult, quitting smoking was so, SO "doable."  I believed her; she was right.  Had it not been for this great support group, I have little doubt that I wouldn't be celebrating this marvelous milestone today.

I have had a "quit smoking meter" running on my computer for these years and, as of moments ago it read:

I have been quit for 3 Years, 3 hours, 12 minutes and 50 seconds (1,096 days). I have saved $9,591.16 by not smoking 54,806 cigarettes. I have saved 6 Months, 6 Days, 7 hours and 10 minutes of my life. My Quit Date: 7/15/2007 12:15 PM

54,806 cigarettes not smoked... that's disgusting, yet wonderful at the same time

I only wish I would've done this while my Mother was alive.  In one of our last conversations before her death, after I'd come back into her house after smoking on the porch, she said, "oh hon, I wish you'd quit smoking."  I (typical addict) took offense and replied somewhat testily, "well... YOU taught ME!"

In a hushed, almost little girl voice she said, "I know.  We didn't know any better."

I've felt guilty about that exchange ever since.  I dedicate my quit to the memory of my dear Mother.

As an aside, if anyone who reads this is a smoker who would like to rid themselves of our shared addiction, just remember...

After smoking 2 - 2-1/2 packs a day for 40 years, if I can do this, certainly you can.

Thank you for indulging me.

Skip

Hypocrites and Arizona's Immigration Law

"Boycott Arizona!" shout the California Democrats, in faux outrage.

"Arizona's new law will lead to racial profiling!" shout the race-baiters on the left.

"Progressives" (code-talk for "liberals," since the term "liberal" is viewed negatively by a majority of Americans these days) rail about the "horrors" of a law that hasn't even gone into effect yet.

"Republican" gubernatorial aspirant/candidate Meg Whitman -- Arnold Schwarzenegger-without-the-penis -- is running campaign ads in Spanish denouncing Arizona's new law, S.B. 1070, while at the same time trying to straddle the fence by telling the non-Spanish media, "...I'm against amnesty."

Her campaign even has billboards touting the fact that she (despite having been mostly politically inactive for 28 years -- not even bothering to vote or even register to vote during much of that stretch) was "against Proposition 187" (the "Save Our State" California ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly by California voters in 1994 - 59% to 41% - in an attempt to deal with the myriad of problems caused by the hordes of illegal aliens streaming, unchecked, into the state... implementation of which was delayed by our activist court system and ultimately allowed to die when Democrat Governor Gray Davis dropped the state's appeal of the court decision in 1999).

A current Whitman campaign billboard:

This translates to --

"NO on Proposition 187 and NO on the Arizona law."

Interesting side note:  Whitman didn't even LIVE in California when Proposition 187 was passed.  She was then living in Massachusetts, working for Hasbro Toys, for the division that markets Mr. Potato Head.

But I digress...


Moving on --

There is an interesting law that can be found lurking in the bowels of the California Penal Code. A law that we certainly will hear nothing about in the so-called "mainstream media," and yet existing  law, nonetheless.  It's on the books, here in the formerly "golden" state.

It's innocuously labeled "California Penal Code Section 834b."

Here is the statute, in its entirety (my emphasis in red), and a link to it on the california.gov website:

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.

There you have it.  The new Arizona law mirrors what is already existing law in the California Penal Code (in addition to mirroring existing Federal law).

And yet, our sanctimonious, hypocritical "leaders" attack Arizona as if its new law, enacted in self-defense because of the Federal government's refusal to enforce existing Federal law, heralds the second coming of the Third Reich.

Does this mean that Los Angeles will boycott California?

< /sarcasm off>


Coincidentally a close reading of CPC Section 834b.(c) (the final paragraph in the law quoted, above) would seem to indicate that so-called "sanctuary cities" (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and others) are actually in violation of existing California law due to their policies of non-enforcement of this law.

Don't expect Attorney General Jerry Brown ("self-entitled" career politician, failed former Governor - two terms before**- who is running, yet again, for that office) to file suit any time soon against our "sanctuary cities," though.  Like anarchists throughout history, Brown and his ilk "pick and choose" which laws they will enforce, mainly out of political expediency.

Both Jerry Brown and his "RINO" opponent this coming November, Meg Whitman, are pandering to the Hispanic voters, as is our President on the national level by having his Department of Justice file suit against the State of Arizona.

The gubernatorial election this coming November here in the once-great-state of California is certainly going to be a "hold your nose and vote" affair.

Again.

Just as barf bags are standard-issue in the seat-backs of commercial aircraft, so should they be mandatory for anyone observing the political machinations of those who deign to "govern" us and who will say and do anything to achieve that purpose.


Skip

*The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ceased to exist on March 1, 2003.  It was replaced by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of the newly-formed U.S. Department of Homeland Security after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

**Despite California voters having enacted strict term limits in 1990, which included limiting the Governor to no more than two terms, former two-term Governor Jerry Brown is exempt from this limitation, as both terms of his failed Governorship took place between 1975 and 1983, prior to the law's implementation.  While not violating the letter of the term limits law, Brown running for a third term as Governor certainly violates the spirit of that law...

Like a petulant child...

That pretty much sums up our thin-skinned current occupant of the White House and the lackeys er, henchmen er, minions who comprise his Administration.

As everyone knows, on April 20th of this year, the BP-leased deepwater oil drilling platform, Deepwater Horizon, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 oil workers, sinking, and leading to what is now recognized as the worst man-caused environmental disaster in history.

On May 6th, President Obama, seizing on the "never let a good crisis go to waste" philosophy of his fellow Chicago thug, Rahm Emanuel, slapped a one-month moratorium on deep-water oil exploration and drilling, immediately shutting down 33 producing and exploratory wells.  On May 27th, Obama arbitrarily extended this ban to six months.

Politically, the disaster was proving to be a Godsend for Obama and his seemingly limitless big-government ambitions... a perfect opportunity for the President to push his punishing "Cap and Trade" legislation and begin to "wean us off of" our dependency upon so-called "fossil fuels" and usher us into a new era of "green energy" -- green energy which, despite not even existing yet, is a major cornerstone of his Socialist agenda.

Several companies, led by Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., an oil industry services provider, filed suit against the moratorium, arguing that the drilling ban was arbitrarily imposed after the Deepwater Horizon tragedy (and ensuing blowout on the ocean floor) and that the ban would cause them "irreparable economic harm."

On June 22nd, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled for the plaintiffs and against the Obama Administration.  He was immediately attacked by the left-wing blogosphere and their big brothers, the "mainstream media."  Feldman had, after all, been appointed by that eeeeeeeeevil Republican, Ronald Reagan...

Shocked that this mere Federal Judge would have the temerity to actually dare to overrule "The One," the Administration immediately appealed Judge Feldman's ruling.

Yesterday, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, issued their ruling --

In a 2-1 decision, they ruled against the Obama Administration and upheld Judge Feldman's ruling overturning the arbitrary drilling moratorium.

Don't expect a return to drilling any tine soon, however -- Obama (through his politically-appointed mouthpiece, "fellow traveler" Interior Secretary Ken Salazar) has already announced that they will be issuing a new "refined" drilling moratorium "soon."

In the meantime, thousands of good paying jobs (in the $50,000 - $90,000 per year range) in the Gulf are now lost, and America's domestic oil production seems poised to decline by over 82,000 barrels per day (30 million barrels a year).

Like a spoiled, petulant child, the national failed experiment that we refer to as "President" cannot take "no" for an answer.

I've often written "remember in November" but, with the increase to an almost daily level of dangerous maneuverings, machinations, and utterances from this dreadful mistake known as Obama, I feel I must change that to a somber --

"November or never."