Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose
Then they better sue California to... same law on the books for many many years.
California Penal Code Section 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.
|
Except that this particular section of California law was already enjoined by the courts, and the injunction against its enforcement remains in place to this day.
It did indeed pass as part of Prop 187 in 1994, but it was challenged and enjoined by a federal district court in Los Angeles. California appealed, but the appeal was abandoned under the Wilson administration.
So, the law remains "on the books" in the sense that it has not been excised or revised by the California state legislature, but it cannot be enforced due to the federal court's injunction.
Something similar will happen with the Arizona law; the court will issue a TRO against the statute's enforcement pending adjudication. From there, it will either make its way slowly through the courts, with the losing side appealing whatever decision is made in each step along the way, or one side or the other will abandon their effort. The process may or may not involve being remanded to a lower court for trial, should there be a reversal on appeal (one way or the other) at some point in the dance.
So... at the end of the day, only one thing is CERTAIN about this law: the wrangling over it will allow the federal and the state government to do what it is that they do best -- spend money they do not have.