General Discussion

Eugene

(61,937 posts) Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:31 AM Jul 2012

California Senate passes "anti-Arizona" immigration bill

Source: Reuters

California Senate passes "anti-Arizona" immigration bill

SACRAMENTO | Fri Jul 6, 2012 1:07am EDT

(Reuters) - The California Senate passed a bill on Thursday that seeks to shield illegal immigrants from status checks by local police and challenges Republican-backed immigration crackdowns in Arizona and other U.S. states.

The Democrat-led state Senate voted 21 to 13 to approve the California Trust Act, dubbed by supporters as the "anti-Arizona" bill. It blocks local police from referring a detainee to immigration officials for deportation unless that person has been convicted of a violent or serious felony.

"Today's vote signals to the nation that California cannot afford to be another Arizona," Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat who sponsored the measure, said in a statement.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

The bill has the backing of about 100 immigrant rights groups, police chiefs and mayors. It has already passed the Democrat-controlled state Assembly in a 47-26 vote and will go back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote following the summer recess before heading to Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California Senate passes "anti-Arizona" immigration bill (Original Post) Eugene Jul 2012 OP

California Turbineguy Jul 2012 #1

I think they want retireees. DCKit Jul 2012 #4

Excellent. Nt xchrom Jul 2012 #2

Those of you who live in the DC area can appreciate this... DCKit Jul 2012 #3

Sen. Ammiano's fact sheet (rather than RW talking points): alp227 Jul 2012 #5

Misleading title - this bill is actually aimed at a federal program run by ICE called S-COM. eomer Jul 2012 #6

Turbineguy

(37,361 posts)

1. California

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:33 AM

Jul 2012

wants people who are willing to work hard and pay taxes.

Arizona wants republicans.

DCKit

(18,541 posts)

4. I think they want retireees.

Reply to Turbineguy (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:43 AM

Jul 2012

But who's going to wipe their asses if they don't have immigrants?

Those assholes are so short-sighted.

xchrom

(108,903 posts)

2. Excellent. Nt

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:39 AM

Jul 2012

DCKit

(18,541 posts)

3. Those of you who live in the DC area can appreciate this...

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:42 AM

Jul 2012

after what they did in Prince William county.

alp227

(32,046 posts)

5. Sen. Ammiano's fact sheet (rather than RW talking points):

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:20 PM

Jul 2012

While the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) stated mission for S-Comm is to target serious offenses, the program casts far too wide a net. ICE’s own data shows that in California seven out of ten of the over 67,900 Californians deported under S-Comm had no convictions or were accused only of minor offenses. Unfortunately, this means immigrant residents who are victims or witnesses to a crime now fear cooperating with police since any contact with law enforcement can result in separation from their families and deportation. Even U.S. citizens, survivors of domestic violence, and immigrants arrested only for selling street food without a permit have been unfairly detained due to S-Comm.

ICE Holds are Voluntary: This is supported by federal case law, federal regulations, and federal statutes. In Baquer v. City of Indianapolis, the federal court held that “A detainer is not a criminal warrant, but rather a voluntary request…”

Specifically, the bill:
• Sets a clear standard for local governments to ot submit to ICE’s request to detain an ndividual unless the individual has a serious or iolent felony conviction.
• Provides key safeguards against profiling and
the wrongful detention of citizens. Localities
that detain individuals with serious convictions
for deportation will develop plans to ensure
citizens are not subject to immigration holds,
guard against profiling, and ensure crime victims
are not discouraged from reporting crimes.

full: http://www.asianlawcaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ab-1081-Ammiano-Fact-Sheet-5.25.12.pdf

In fact, some may bring up the Edwin Ramos case in arguing against this bill, but the facts are that the San Francisco sheriff did submit Ramos's fingerprints to ICE in March 2008, but ICE declined to place a detainer on Ramos three months before he committed a triple murder for which he was recently convicted. Ramos had two violent crime convictions before ICE received his info from the sheriff, so criminals like him would not be protected under this law anyway.

eomer

(3,845 posts)

6. Misleading title - this bill is actually aimed at a federal program run by ICE called S-COM.

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 12:47 PM

Jul 2012

S-COM (Secure Communities but we prefer to use S-COM to avoid repeating the Orwellian official name) is a federal program that some local communities have been pushing back against. Using S-COM, federal immigration authorities (ICE) pressure local communities and local law enforcement around the country to engage in Arizona-style practices.

The result is to make communities less secure, not more, because it causes immigrant communities to fear local police and avoid contact with them when they would otherwise report crimes, be willing witnesses, and so on.

A few counties and cities have enacted measures to prevent their law enforcement from cooperating with ICE/S-COM. Now it seems that California is doing so at the state level. I'm involved, with and through the UU Congregation I'm a member of, with local immigrants' rights advocates who are fighting S-COM.

So let's be clear that it is a federal program run by the Executive Branch that is targeted by this bill. The offensive aspects of the program are "Arizona-style" but it isn't the Arizona law itself that this California law targets but rather the adoption of similar tactics by ICE at the federal level. So you may want to call or write to the White House and ask them to halt the Arizona-style S-COM federal program.

Here is the text of the California bill:
http://legiscan.com/gaits/text/187592

Note: the OP title is a quote so my beef is not with the OP but with the original article.

Reply to this discussion