Tag Cloud
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Sacramento City Council to discuss Arizona law
by Matt McGuire, published on May 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Storyline: Local Politics
On Tuesday the Sacramento City Council will discuss their official position and possible action surrounding the newly enacted Arizona immigration bill, SB1070. The bill was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23rd and takes effect 90 day later. The agenda item comes at the request of Councilman Rob Fong. Fong has publicly requested the City of Sacramento to boycott Arizona for any official business because of Arizona's desire to enforce federal law within their state.
According to the Sacramento City website, "You are welcomed and encouraged to participate in this meeting. Public comment is taken (2 minutes maximum) on items listed on the agenda when they are called. Public Comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard as noted on the agenda. Comments on controversial items may be limited and large groups are encouraged to select 3-5 speakers to represent the opinion of the group."
The City Council Agenda is dedicating 1 hour to the discussion of the Arizona law. Other timed agenda times include 2 minutes for “Marina Fee Revision”, 5 minutes for “Transit Overlay Zone Amendment”, and 20 minutes for “FloodSafe and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan”. Discussions surrounding Sacramento flood protection is receiving 1/3 of the time that discussions about a law that has nothing to do with the residents of Sacramento is receiving. The Sacramento City staff has also generated a 71 page report on the discussion of the Arizona law. Apparently the City of Sacramento has solved all of the city’s problems and the staff has nothing to do but prepare reports on a law from a state where we do not live.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Recent SCOTUS decisions, however, preclude such laws, even if enacted by state legislatures or plebecites, which may have even an unintended consequence of harming the civil rights of such classes -- the 'Colorado' decision is especially on point in this regard...
While it may seem like wasted effort, the hew and cry of other jurisdictions might just have the effect of changing the (sometimes myopic) minds of Arizonans, and apparently it is already having an effect -- since the boycott began Arizona's economy has suffered a noticeable loss approaching 7% on a year over year basis, per the ACLU and BRAVENEWFOUNDATION...
Protests like this were effective against South Africa, and protests like this are working again to stop the tide of racism and bigotry and hatred against blanket edicts that pronounce guilt against citizens merely because of their color...
SB1070 is wrong, a toxicity that this nation does not need at a time of economic strife that makes stupid people reach for lowest common denominator solutions to complex problems...
unintended consequences may include harming the civil rights of many more.
"to stop the tide of racism and bigotry and hatred against blanket edicts that pronounce guilt against citizens merely because of their color"
in South Africa, citizens were targeted due to their color, in this case, non-citizens are targeted due to lack of documentation.
the stand against the AZ law does not provide "solutions to complex problems..." of illegal immigration. until that happens the "lowest common denominator solutions" will continue.
These may seem simple issues, but they are fundamental to American constitutional jurisprudence, and they are anything but easy...
is illegal immigration not a problem?
"How does one establish the probable cause that an individual has no citizenship documentation on their person???"
How does AZ propose to do that?
"What if a citizen has no such documentation on their person???"
Aren't all citizens required to carry ID?
No
"Aren't all citizens required to carry ID?"
We're told that we are. Is that unConstitutional?
No, what?
All laws are a series of elements, and the probable cause element is a major step in the prosecution of a crime. You may have heard on a 'law show' of some kind that a crime 'doesn't meet elements' in a prosecution, which means the suspected offense gets tossed.
This law's nebulousness was quite deliberate given its origins in Arizona's far right Republican party, and it's this very characteristic that leaves the measure constitutionally flawed..
that's crazy. are they assuming "probable cause" will be dependent on already existing criteria? that is a slippery slope. esp. when so many deny the reality of racial profiling.
I applaud the City Council for having the courage to discuss the Arizona law. The whole issue of immigrant rights is important for many in Sacramento and not just undocumented so-called illegal Mexican immigrants. Beware, much of this anti-immigrant mood is disguised racism. We are inside the United States you know. Let history be a guide to action!
Is that a new category? and when "undocumented so-called illegal Mexican immigrants" are hired illegally by businesses to do illegal work, it causes more problems for everyone.
AZ is extreme. Does opposition to it include honest discussion about iillegal immigration?
What is "undocumented so-called illegal Mexican immigrants..." A pass?
Not only do they break them, but they aid their construction so as to be so complicated that no one could possibly enforce them...
It ain't so easy to change the law to benefit most Americans, especially when corporate dollars flood the halls of the legislature to prevent such efforts...
I am not blaming anyone. I am not even arguing the merits of the Arizona law. This story is about the Sacramento City Council spending staff time and our tax dollars to deal with a law in Arizona. It does not even matter what the law is about. Sacramento elected officials were voted in to deal with Sacramento issues. They are wasting valuable time and money.
And Hunnicutt, YOU voted for KJ -- speaking of irrational thinking...
There are many ways to look at this. One answer to your broader question is:
google "Martin Niemöller"
Lots of people have their rights violated in Sac county, and they get zero support from him. Count the number of assaults, trespass, breaking and entering, robbery, etc. in the city without him coming out in their corner.
Go Arizona! Lawyers and politicians may side with criminals from south of the border, but citizens support you
Here is a crucial portion:
The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
color or national origin.
Again what does an Arizona law have to do with Sacramento? No one can seem to answer that.
Your comment "I believe SB1070 amounts to legalized apartheid in Arizona" is intriguing.
If AB1070 is based on federal law, and AB1070 is "legalized aparthied", are you then accusing the federal government and the current administration of supporting aparthied as well?
Read Arizona AB1070, and then read the US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, subchapter II, Part 7, section 1304. For instance this US code (which has been in place since 1940) states the following which is amazingly similar to AB 1070:
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both"
Or maybe bbbmer you are one of those lawyer types like Holder or Obama who doesn't bother to actually read laws when dispensing legal views?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001302----000-.html
But, yes, I do hold a law degree, though I am not a practicing lawyer, and I do indeed READ laws, including the code sections you referenced, along with SB1070's counterparts.
What you fail to recognize is just how is this to be enforced, with the establishment of probable cause for police intervention based upon race, with citizens and noncitizens alike wearing brown skin with no other indicator to distinguish the two separate classes.
The implicit nature of this act flies in the face of constitutional protections against unreasonable search/seizure and equal protection doctrines. There is no other way to view the act but for its undercurrent of racism and scapegoating for social ills rather than confronting them in a manner consistent with our constitution.
SB1070 is merely thinly veiled racism -- nothing more... apart from political grandstanding by the right to cultivate race based hatred and sanctimony among whites against people of color...
Who is in favor of illegal immigration.
* Business elite wanting to reduce costs (same argument used for slavery 150 years ago BTW).
* Political elite wanting to increae future voting base, and/ior to win favor with Latino voters
* Spanish ruling elite in Mexico who benefit from the economic & political stability of having the darker skinned, hardworking ambitious men go away instead of causing trouble at home, and sending money back into Mexico's economy.
If you are aligned with any of this groups, then your oppostion to AB 1070 makes perfect sense. But if you are someone that appreciates America virtues and works for living, you should take time to recognize the motives of the shrills who oppose this law, and realize they may not have your best interests in mind..
It really doesn't get any better than that.
Illegal immigration is detrimental to the well-being of our nation and the well-being of illegal immigrants. Supporting illegal immigration equates to supporting apartheid, not the other way around.
Can you say the same???
Our city council will accomplish absolutely nothing from this embarrassment. Obama sent 1,200 troops to the border today. That literally shouts there is a big problem. Look for more troops and increased border security in the coming days. Also look for 60-70 percent of voters approving of these much needed moves.
Sacramento's role in this matter is that as a major American city, it can join along with other cities to compel a reversal of the Arizona apartheid law, and not feed the economic forces in Arizona that brought this unconstitutional law into being.
The issue here is whether SB 1070 is unconstitutional -- I believe it is in its offense of the supremacy and equal protection doctrines in that the law is impossible to enforce without the establishment of probable cause of an immigration offense among all members of the suspect class, whether they are citizens or not.
Economic boycotts worked against South African apartheid, which this law seems patterned after, especially given its origins in the extreme right wing of Arizona's Republican party.
For this purpose it is right that Sacramento engage in a boycott of jurisdictions that offend the constitution, whether foreign or domestic, and to avoid spending tax dollars in such jurisdictions, and to voice opposition to such practices in other jurisdictions...
In the law there is an ancient maxim "silence intends consent". If Sacramento was to remain silent on this matter, it would give consent to the ultra conservative bigots who authored the Arizona measure, allowing them an unjust legitimacy.
Where injustice exists it is imperative to fight it, and that the Council is asserting its province to call this boycott and add to the chorus that stands in opposition to the Arizona law.
That is illegal naga.
The courts will decide whether AB 1070 is unconstitional, with or without comments on SacPress.
But I am still fascinated how you can compare this law to South African aparthied. Federal law clearly states that immigrants must carry their papers, and this is simply reflected in the Arizona law. i have never heard any source, ACLU, La Raza or otherwise accuse the federal government of a Latino aparthied policy. So how do you reconcile your position with the longstanding federal immigration law?
As stated earlier, immigrants must carry documents -- citizens are not required to. The problem is establishing probable cause that an immigration crime has been committed by someone who make look like an immigrant but is really a citizen. It is in this that the system is basically an apartheid in conflating these two populations ignoring that one of them, the citizens who may look like the suspected illegal immigrants, may be stopped, searched, and subject to seizure, unlawfully and unconstitutionally...
It's THIS point that folks like you just don't get.... I pity that your minds cannot fathom this, for it's this protection that protects YOU yourselves...
Sacramento City Council should not attempt to address every perceived injustice in the world. There are too many and the city has only so much money. Has the city addressed Somalia, Darfur, or Bangladesh? Addressing the Arizona law is fashionable in certain circles and that is why the city council is doing it. They know it will do no good, but they can say look at me I am fighting the big bad officials in Arizona. I hope they feel better. Now can we get back to the issues here in Sacramento. You know, those issues the city council was elected to address.
"For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification."
Then again this really isn't about the law, it's about the Sacramento City Council wasting tax payer dollars on their own political games. It's time to get back to working on the issues in this city. The city they were elected to serve.
There is a lot of confusion here about that. If the AZ was an actual solution to illegal immigration, you would have more of a valid argument, but it isn't. It will cause more problems and has dangerous "unintended consequences" even for people like you who are ignorant of that fact.
Come on naga point out one lie or maybe you could try to stick to the discussion.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007391
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's the perception that can be problematic, esp. on traffic stops, esp, on judgement calls, esp. when race/class is involved, esp. when so many pretend that racial profiling doesn't occur and won't be made worse by a law in AZ that doesn't address the problem of illegal immigation, only makes some people feel selfrighteous and puts more people in harm's way.
Someone not understanding this isn't necessarily "a racist." Living in Rancho Murieta doesn't make you one. Combined with the classic "If you haven't broken a law you have nothing to fear," it adds up to being privileged, probably white, rich enough to think you have nothing to fear because your privilege will protect you, even from having to think about it.
"If you haven't broken a law you have nothing to fear" is the excuse people use to give their own and others' rights away.
and you "Matt McGuire" are lying about everything I've said and now proven that it is not by accident, it is intentional. your credibility is zero and you probably are being paid for your troublemaking. that last one certainly sounds like it with the phony crap you are accusing me of.
your disinformation will succeed as long as the people reading you have never had a civics class and don't know how this potentially puts them in harm's way also. hopefully the studies and training on the reality of racial profiling will help those officers who are put in the extremely difficult position that this law will create for them as well.
buh bye