"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...
No comments:
Post a Comment