rhaig 0 #26 May 20, 2010 Quote I find that claims that they are fined are unfounded if found unfunded. Which is fine. Roger, Roger!-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #27 May 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote On what authority would the federal government fine a non-federal agency for failure to comply with a non-federal law? Blues, Dave None yet.Give that autority to the NIS and see I bet things change, and the INS would have more capital to spend enforcing the laws already in place. Couldn't California simply repeal the law in question to prevent being fined for failure to comply with it? Blues, Dave Anything is possible. Imean they created a special code that violates that law specifically, so why not. No, they didn't. The City of Los Angeles law says they may not initiate police action for the purpose of verifying immigration status. The state law says that they will verify the immigration status of arrestees whom they suspect of being in violation of immigration law, and cooperate with the INS as appropriate. These laws are not contradictory. Blues, Dave So, they are not allowed to ask wether they are legal or illegal. I get that. However 834B requires it - you really don't see the contradiction here?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #28 May 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnything is possible. Imean they created a special code that violates that law specifically, so why not. No, they didn't. The City of Los Angeles law says they may not initiate police action for the purpose of verifying immigration status. The state law says that they will verify the immigration status of arrestees whom they suspect of being in violation of immigration law, and cooperate with the INS as appropriate. These laws are not contradictory. Blues, Dave So, they are not allowed to ask wether they are legal or illegal. I get that. However 834B requires it - you really don't see the contradiction here? What Andy said. The city law prohibits them from walking up to someone on the street and demanding proof of legal immigration. The state law says they must verify the immigration status of arrestees if they suspect them of being here illegally. These are not contradictory. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #29 May 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnything is possible. Imean they created a special code that violates that law specifically, so why not. No, they didn't. The City of Los Angeles law says they may not initiate police action for the purpose of verifying immigration status. The state law says that they will verify the immigration status of arrestees whom they suspect of being in violation of immigration law, and cooperate with the INS as appropriate. These laws are not contradictory. Blues, Dave So, they are not allowed to ask wether they are legal or illegal. I get that. However 834B requires it - you really don't see the contradiction here? What Andy said. The city law prohibits them from walking up to someone on the street and demanding proof of legal immigration. The state law says they must verify the immigration status of arrestees if they suspect them of being here illegally. These are not contradictory. Blues, Dave It states that no policing action may be taken. Questioning is a policing action.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #30 May 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnything is possible. Imean they created a special code that violates that law specifically, so why not. No, they didn't. The City of Los Angeles law says they may not initiate police action for the purpose of verifying immigration status. The state law says that they will verify the immigration status of arrestees whom they suspect of being in violation of immigration law, and cooperate with the INS as appropriate. These laws are not contradictory. Blues, Dave So, they are not allowed to ask wether they are legal or illegal. I get that. However 834B requires it - you really don't see the contradiction here? What Andy said. The city law prohibits them from walking up to someone on the street and demanding proof of legal immigration. The state law says they must verify the immigration status of arrestees if they suspect them of being here illegally. These are not contradictory. Blues, Dave It states that no policing action may be taken. Questioning is a policing action. No, it says "Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry)." Bold added by me for emphasis. A person under arrest has already had police action initiated against them. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #31 May 20, 2010 To anyone who may know... Is 834b followed after someone is arrested in California? James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #32 May 20, 2010 QuoteTo anyone who may know... Is 834b followed after someone is arrested in California? James I cannot support this, but in my reasearch last night there was a link to some information that listed there were more people struck by lightning in LA than were deported for being illegally in this country.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #33 May 20, 2010 QuoteTo anyone who may know... Is 834b followed after someone is arrested in California? I recently read an article (http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_ice12.452d76f.html) about Riverside County (where I live), saying that "Everyone booked into Riverside County jail will now face an immigration check as part of a new federal program that started in the county Tuesday." Which seems to imply that it wasn't being followed before. (Or maybe it's just changing how they do it?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #34 May 20, 2010 Quote Quote To anyone who may know... Is 834b followed after someone is arrested in California? James I cannot support this, but in my reasearch last night there was a link to some information that listed there were more people struck by lightning in LA than were deported for being illegally in this country. Man, I should buy stock in whatever burn cream is used for the victims of lightning strikes. XHere are some numbers from 2008. I couldn't find as detailed a breakdown for 2009, I just saw references to the number of returns & removals being higher in 2009 than 2008. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 May 20, 2010 Quote The Arizona law as originally written applied to anyone Law Enforcement came into contact with during their normal duties. They had to verify the status of anyone they suspected of being illegal no matter what the reason for the contact. There had to be another reason for the stop. For example, pulling somebody over for speeding. Or jaywalking. Or loitering. Basically, it's the same thing as running a warrant check. A person gets stopped. Cop gets ID. Runs a check. Person has a warrant? Person gets pinched. Of course, I still don't like the AZ law. It makes it too easy to abuse this process. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #36 May 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteTo anyone who may know... Is 834b followed after someone is arrested in California? James I cannot support this, but in my reasearch last night there was a link to some information that listed there were more people struck by lightning in LA than were deported for being illegally in this country. Really? My own scientific research reflects that there are more dogs that herniate cervical discs while licking their balls than Canadians deported at the Detroit border crossing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #37 May 20, 2010 For some interesting reading google "LA sactuary policy". It looks like San Francisco may have a policy change forced on them by ICE. http://www.examiner.com/a-2617281~SF_sheriff_says_fed_program_nixes_sanctuary_policy.html Maybe this will force them to comply with state law 834b. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #38 May 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteNot exactly. The California law applies to anyone arrested. The cops are supposed to verify the status of anyone they throw in jail. The Arizona law as originally written applied to anyone Law Enforcement came into contact with during their normal duties. They had to verify the status of anyone they suspected of being illegal no matter what the reason for the contact. Similar, but Arizona goes quite a bit further. When you are pulled over for speeding or some minor traffic infraction, you are technically under a state of arrest until released at the officer's discretion. Bingo.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 May 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNot exactly. The California law applies to anyone arrested. The cops are supposed to verify the status of anyone they throw in jail. The Arizona law as originally written applied to anyone Law Enforcement came into contact with during their normal duties. They had to verify the status of anyone they suspected of being illegal no matter what the reason for the contact. Similar, but Arizona goes quite a bit further. When you are pulled over for speeding or some minor traffic infraction, you are technically under a state of arrest until released at the officer's discretion. Bingo. That is what I suspected . . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
