Breaking News: Los Angeles to boycott themselves

Well, not really. But they should, at least if they want to maintain even the most basic degree of consistency.

As it turns out, California’s Penal Code, Section 834b is eerily similar to the controversial new Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. You’d think that Los Angeles and San Francisco officials would have thought their cunning plan through before calling for an all-out boycott of Arizona business.

(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.

(Source: Washington Times)

Whoopsies. It’s starting to look like all that talk of boycotting Arizona for its draconian, human-rights-violating hate law is political grandstanding, after all. Either California officials are clueless about their own state’s laws, or they’re intentionally lying about Arizona’s law to score political points and widen the racial divide. I’ll give California the benefit of the doubt and say that they’re probably just ignorant.

This is just the latest in a onslaught of facts that are proving correct what Arizona argued all along – there’s nothing racist about the law, it’s no more harsh than existing federal law, so quit whining, you all didn’t read the law anyway.

Megyn Kelly, host of Fox’s “America Live” and an established attorney, took a closer look at the law on the “O’Reilly Factor” this Thursday. After researching case law, including the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the subject, she found that that the Arizona law is not only constitutional, but less stringent than federal law.

“Did you know that the Supreme Court already ruled a few years ago that under federal law, cops can pull you over for no reason and demand to see your immigration papers? For no reason. They don’t have to have reasonable suspicion,” she said, referring to the 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Muller v. Menia.

“Under Arizona law, they do.”

In a previous article, I had described earlier case law dealing with the Fourth Amendment and how it applied to the situation in Arizona. I won’t repeat those arguments here, but I will emphasize that, legally speaking, the opponents of the bill don’t have a leg to stand on. Their arguments about racial profiling and human rights violations are not grounded in reality, and can mostly be attributed to the media frenzy on the subject rather than a close study of the law itself.

It seems people would rather take Shakira’s word for it than research standing case law, including, so it seems, our own Attorney General, Eric Holder. When asked by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) if he had read the bill, Holder admitted that he had not.

“I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it,” he said.

“It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it, if you would like to have a copy,” replied Poe.

While you’re at it, Congressman, go ahead and forward a copy to the mainstream media. Apparently they haven’t read it, either.