Comparing two laws

Categories: Politics
Find me on Google+

I try to stay out of politics here for the most part. But I found this very interesting. I’m not going to say that they are right or wrong. I just want to point out the similarities and differences.

Similarities – the text. It might also be noted the frequent references to federal law in both.

Differences – The first is passed and other states and cities don’t boycott state C. Conventions don’t leave state C. There aren’t nationwide protests about it. And the President of the United States doesn’t threaten to sue state C.

The second is passed and, oddly, cities in state C boycott state A. Conventions leave state A. There are nationwide protests about it. And the President of the United States threatens to sue state A.

I just find it interesting.

And if the comments turn into a debate they will be deleted and comments will be closed.

And here’s the text.

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 Senate Bill 1070

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read: ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts 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 agency of this state or 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. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1372(c).

C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the united states immigration and customs enforcement or the united states customs and border protection.

D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.

E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the united states.

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

3. Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

4. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title ii, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and nationality act.

G. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:

1. That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

2. That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection g and remit the civil penalty to the department of public safety for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41-1724.

I. A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

J. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of united states citizens.

One shared thought about Comparing two laws

  1. Mimi says:
    Giggle

    I found it very interesting too. I don’t know why everyone was making a big deal about one state trying to enforce a federal law. I hope that comment wasn’t too controversial.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

smile big grin lol joy wink tongue sideways silly pouty sad crying surprised shock unsure huh cool pinched annoyed whistle w00t sleep sick angry read love kiss heart check computer lightbulb game pacman sun moon star snow cactus daisies pansy elephant penguin turtle butterfly bird cow owl apple pencil party car tractor run infertility