Okay, here goes:
Section 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in_________ 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 __________ 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.
"Demanding Documentation"?? What? How dare they demand substantiating documentation of someone's legal status. That's an outrage! Ahem.
You may be thinking this MUST be Arizona with this strong language regarding questioning suspected illegal immigrants given the levels of protest. I mean, yikes, that's some pretty strong language there in that entire section. They ain't messing around, that's for sure.
But what really struck me was the threat in #3-C regarding the prohibition against limiting or not cooperating with this law. Why? Because that would include the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just two, which have voted to boycott Arizona over their very similar law. This is California's law on Illegal Immigrants.
Yep. So, when Obama, the President, dismisses out of hand a law that is extremely close to California's own law, that says something. Perhaps Obama can't be expected to know about California's law. But the freaking governor of the state should know about it, especially being a LEGAL immigrant himself. That makes Schwarzenegger's comment regarding Arizona even more surprising:
"I was also to go and give a commencement speech in Arizona, but with my accent I was worried they were going to deport me back to Austria," said Schwarzenegger.
The governor has said he's strongly opposed to the Arizona law. He says the attempt to control illegal immigration will create a "mess.
So, is he admitting that he is failing to follow the laws of his own state, and the Federal Government? Kinda seems that way to me.
Perhaps, instead of Obama criticizing Arizona, he should take a look at why the current federal law is not being upheld. Maybe he could ask if these cities and states who refuse to uphold this law are willing to forgive and all federal tax dollars - OUR dollars - because they are in violation of federal law. Yeah, right. I know, that will happen about the same time our unicorns and Obama cash show up, as my buddy, SFIndie, is wont to say.
I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure that all of these elected officials were required to take oaths of office pledging to uphold the laws and Constitution. Did some of these laws become optional at some point? Sure seems that way since entire cities are willing to take stands saying they REFUSE to uphold laws on the books in their own state. And if they refuse to follow federal and state laws, why should anyone follow what THEY say?
In the meantime, maybe these folks in CA can get off their high horses about Arizona, and maybe take a little look see at their own laws. Just a suggestion. Especially since Arizona is NOT going to take this lying down:
Moreover, this travel thing goes both ways, too. Oh, yes. Arizona residents are basically saying, "You can bite us" to San Diego:
Would-be tourists have notified the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau and some hotels that they are canceling their scheduled travel to the coastal vacation destination, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
I believe this is known as, "Screw me? Screw YOU screw me!" And don't think this isn't affecting San Diego:
That has tourism officials urging Arizonans to consider the resolutions as merely symbolic and local politics at work.
"We're in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don't need another negative impact to our industry," ConVis President Joe Terzi told the Union-Tribune. "This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don't do something that hurts their livelihoods."
"I've been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancelations from Arizona guests," Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association, told the newspaper.
Roughly 2 million Arizonans visit San Diego each year but the recession has taken a toll on the hotel industry that was hoping for a comeback this year. Hotels are offering deep discounts to fill up their undersold rooms while the tourism board spends $7 million this spring and summer season to promote travel to the area.
Imagine that. There are actually consequences to the actions taken by these city councils, and Arizonans have no reason to see them as "symbolic."
Add these kneejerk, politically motivated decisions to our elected officials deciding they do not have to follow state or federal laws they decide they don't like. Can you imagine what would happen if we decide there are laws we just areen't going to bother following, and take a step further, demand others not follow, too? Oh, I know - whaddya say we try doing that with our taxes and see how far we get? Yeah, I know - not very far.
Maybe the Governor of Arizona needs to put her law down side by side California's law, and have a little chat with her fellow governor. Let him know this thing goes both ways, and she is not going to sit back while California threatens Arizona simply for enforcing federal law.
And if California refuses to enforce federal laws, I say take their damn funding away. They cannot have it both ways, right? Let's hear it.