I too despise AZ’s loathsome immigration law—SB 1070—which makes it a state crime to lack immigration papers and requires police to determine the immigration status of people they lawfully stop for other reasons, including violations of municipal ordinances.
But, I was not in favor of the fact that, along with a number of American cities, LA’s City Council approved a travel and economic boycott of Arizona in order to protest the law. Predictably, however, the boycott is turning out to be a bit more complicated than originally thought.
A problem turned up last week when it came to light that the LAPD had registered—and paid for—four of its Air Support Division officers to attend the yearly Airborne Law Enforcement Association Conference, which this time is being held in Tuscon. The event is evidently a great opportunity for networking and for sharing operational info.
What to do? Could there be an exemption granted? Council members Bernard Parks and Greig Smith introduced a motion to exempt the four LAPD Airborne guys and their pre-boycott-paid trip.
But before the matter could be discussed, the department quietly quashed the training trip.
The police union’s Paul Weber, was extremely annoyed and, this time, I’m with the LAPPL.
But that’s not the end of it. Tuesday, the council’s Public Safety Committee will hurriedly discuss another exemption from the boycott—this time around the issue of those red light cameras, which it turns out are run by a company in Scottsdale.
If an exemption from the boycott isn’t granted, and the city isn’t able to extend its contract with the camera company, while LA scrambles for another firm to take its place, the cameras are expected to be out of commission for nine months. After that, the operation of 32 intersections will be construction-plagued while new cameras can be installed, and….
…the LA Times reports that the other big firm that provides the cameras is also based in Arizona.
Do we want to take bets on whether or not this will be the last such exemption needed?
I agree with you that the Arizona law is ill-conceived and will have consequences it didn’t intend, from profiling in fact if not intent, everyone having to carry papers even for routine trips to the market and so on, scaring away otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants from cooperating to catch the really bad ones: but L A in this budget crisis should have done a comprehensive study of economic impacts before rushing into this feel-good legislation. As you note, this conference was already paid for so it’s a waste of money when they’re already nickel and diming LAPD.
And, even the City Council’s proponents of the boycott, Janice Hahn (and was it Bill Rosendahl? All but Greig Smith? I’m not sure) etc. agreed that public safety should be exempted. They clearly didn’t define what constitutes public safety in their minds. Meanwhile, they may approve an exemption for a deal regarding red-light cameras, which rightwing radio pundits are saying means it’s only revenue-generating exemptions that will be granted.
However, I don’t agree with the LAPPL in blaming Chief Beck for not wanting to be in the middle of this internecine battle on the City Council between Greig Smith (and Zine? who voted with the majority on the boycott, but now wants to play sides with the PPL?) and Janice Hahn.
Greig should fight it out in general terms, forcing the council to determine what constitutes public safety, and forcing a more comprehensive budget analysis in tearing up every contract with an Arizona company, as well as then spending time on item by item exemptions.
This shouldn’t drag the LAPD and Chief into the middle of a political battle which would then likely involve HIS views on the Arizona law, relative to LA’s policies, etc. (Something the PPL is already doing in its blog, and by quoting “Jack Dunphy” as downright critical of Chief Beck’s alleged personal views, as allegedly being counter to virtually all- he claims – the rank and file, which of course, Paul Weber claims to represent. They accuse Beck of playing politics, but no one has done that more than Weber since he took over the PPL – his critics note, blowing over $2 million on just two political local races, picking candidates not supported by the rank and file nor experience in public safety. First the CA race then novice Essel over Paul Krekorian – both the incumbents Weber blew money to oppose had admittedly strong records in public safety so Weber’s eratic at best, lets his Republican politics influence sense, at worst. And last year even the LATimes which too is eratic at best, even called him “cynical” for wanting to change the Chief’s job from being one appointed by the Mayor to an elected office that THEY could buy too, in essence, someone accountable to Weber.)
Liberals like SBL can spin yarns but facts seem to be foreign to them. It’s all what ifs, maybes and speculation. I’m sure she’s happy Mexico has filed a brief to have the Arizona Law deemed unconstitutional. Like it’s their call or that they should have a say in what Arizona does. Fear mongering from the left is what SBL is taking part in.
Illegal immigration is a net loss to this country when you consider what we spend on their care (housing, medical, incarceration, incarceration and judicial proceedings, education etc.) and the destruction they’ve caused not only to the environment on their way here but also once they get here.
For all the liberals with no sense of loyalty to this country, and you can all claim otherwise but it’s all lip service, it’s more important to you not to offend anyone than preserve for all American citizens the services we work hard for and need.
On top of SBL’s fairy tale ponderings on what might happen in Arizona, as compared to what has actually been taking place in this country for years, without any facts at all she claims Weber isn’t speaking for the rank and file and further pushes this giant lie that people won’t co-operate with law enforcement due to their legal status. Oh I know she didn’t say that exactly but her intent is clear enough.
Beck was pandering to the mayor, the troops know it as does most of law enforcement.
Total b.s of the worst kind SBL.
Here’s some photos about the trash left during the trek north through the Arizona Border area. These photos are all over the net. I checked verification websites for their authenticity and found nothing on the pictures, they appear to be what I’ve posted.
http://feedyouradhd.blogspot.com/2010/05/presidents-calderon-and-zero-heres-what.html
Once again Sure Fire demonstrates why it’s been impossible to have a rational discussion about the Arizona law, because that presumes a glimmer of intelligence from both parties.
And the ability to think logically, and respond to what’s said not what one imagines in his head because he’s incapable of thinking beyond the most simplistic black-white cliches. “If you oppose the law you are “a liberal with no sense of loyalty to this country,” anxious to give away the social services of this country to illegal immigrants out of blatant contempt for “American citizens who…work hard for and need such services.” HOW DARE YOU. I’ve ignored the insults of this smug nitwit SF but enough is enough.
I never ONCE here or elsewhere said that illegal immigratin is fine and dandy, that they shouldn’t be held to the same immigration laws as anyone else from any other country, and have perhaps uniquely among the “liberals” you deride incessantly in broadest strokes and lump together, commented on the numbers involving Latinos, most likely illegals, on our local “most wanted” lists; on their numbers in the prison population, on the unfairness of wealthier neighborhoods in L A having crappy, run-down and over-crowded schools compared to what they’d have in any other city, because LAUSD is 3/4 Latino, with the same % student population below the poverty line.
I’m not even sure that the 14th Amendment intended for the children of anyone in the U. S. to become a citizen: I think there’s some validity to the speculations of conservative legal scholars like former candidate/ law school dean Eastman, that if it WERE meant such, the wording “and subject to the jurisdiction of” the U. S., would have been added. His argument that only children of Native Americans, African Americans and others here legally who weren’t granted full citizenship, could become citizens. I think it’s time to have a discussion of the full impacts of illegal immigration, to examine the financial figures and crime stats on something resembling a factual footing instead of with the selection quotes we get now from both sides.
I come from a family of legal immigrants who came to this country after a long wait to get on the national quota for their country, worked very hard and had the greatest contempt for immigrants who came only to take advantage of this financially or who had no respect for the unique freedoms we have here. BUT because they understood those freedoms first-hand, and knew what it was like to live under fascist/ communist regimes were the police had arbitrary power and could question at will anyone who was of the wrong race or religion or politically ruling party, to be unable to walk about in freedom, to live in fear.
Meanwhile, you keep insisting that it’s nonsense that law-abiding illegal immigrants will avoid talking to cops if they have a mandate to report illegal immigrants to ICE. Yeah, it stands to reason they’ll cooperate more fully. You have no data that Weber and his clique in their misguided attempts to play politics vs. Beck (like they shamelessly did vs. Bratton), and to buy politicians they can control, speak for the rank & file. To the contrary, after their high-profile debacles, there’s evidence they do not.
I’ve had enough of getting riled up keeping down my anger at the insults from the likes of you – you epitomize all that’s deeply offensive and pathetic about the teabagging, mudslinging right; you had better learn to READ, LISTEN and THINK before you so revile people for what they never even said. (Sorry Celeste, his attacking my patriotism/ etc. etc. based on assumptions in his own mind, needed one response.)
I wonder if SBL is one of those liberals who wears Che Guevera tee-shirts?
You can’t have a rational discussion when you flat out lie about the law or how officers will work withins it’s limitations. When you get some law enforcement experience at the street level than you can have an informed opinion in that area, until then it’s just meaningless chatter.
You deserve every insult I throw your way you ignoramus. You wrote this..”I agree with you that the Arizona law is ill-conceived and will have consequences it didn’t intend, from profiling in fact if not intent, everyone having to carry papers even for routine trips to the market and so on, scaring away otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants from cooperating to catch the really bad ones”, which is total bull-shit. Their your words you own them and they can’t be defended.
That none of you speak to the fact this law mirrors federal law is like saying that it’s ok that the feds aren’t doing enough but Arizona can’t pick up the ball when the courts have already said they can in past rulings. Read up on it and get informed because you’re obviously not.
What you know about police union issues is guided by your dislike of Weber, you’ve wrote about it enough so spare me your lame attempt at what you pass off as what you know to be true as compared to what you feel. That’s how liberals argue though so it’s not like I’m surprised.
Did you like the pictures? Think this whole country shouldn’t be pissed about it?
Let’s not make it personal, guys. Thanks.
That one line quoted in 6 is the ONLY thing I actually said and yes, it’s something I do defend – the only way to avoid profiling people who “look Hispanic” i.e. dark-skinned, or speak with an accent or wear certain clothes, etc., and lawsuits re: same from the ACLU and other civil rights groups WILL BE to “card” everyone. Just like at the airports.
The rest of your rant is just that – you can’t refute anything I’ve said or back up your inane assertions which are nothing but knee-jerk ad hominums deriving from far rightwing views and blind adoration of others who share them, and non-sequitors (like those pictures you throw in at the end again which relate to NOTHING I’ve said, just to YOUR “feelings”) and rude insults (“you deserve every insult I throw your way you ignoramus”) because it’s all you’ve got, the condescension of the ignorant. What you sum up as “That’s how liberals argue so I’m not surprised,” applies in fact to you. The ONLY style of “argument” you ever have against anyone on this blog or elsewhere. Your primordial fury is directed against anyone you deem “liberal” and you’re incapable of distinguishing between views an individual holds, and every so-called “liberal” idea roiling in your head in some sort of gigantic anger cloud. You admit you’re just about “insults I throw your way.” The last resort of the intellectually empty and irrelevant. I’m sure we’ll see plenty of that mindless venom tossed at Boxer/Brown/Obama/Harris, etc, in coming months and can just “file it away” as such. Have a nice day.
I suggest you all read California Penal Code Section 834b which reads as follows:
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.
NOW WHAT PART OF THE LAW DON’T OUR CITY LEADERS UNDERSTAND? The law doesn’t suggest or recommend action in compliance with this Penal Code section, it uses the term “SHALL”. Sounds like they have been in dereliction of their duty for many years. Is this law any different than the newly passed Arizona Immigration Bill? Doesn’t look like it to me.
Mike, 2) specifies checking the legal status of anyone “who is arrested” for some offense. OTHER THAN being in the country illegally AS the initial crime (which was the Arizona law, at least the initial version). No one ever disputed that someone arrested for another crime should be processed accordingly – even L A’s SO40 premises this. (Though some question whether some law enforcement agencies pursue the investigations of legal status aggressively enough – e.g., the Jamiel Shaw, Jr. case where the alleged killer Pedro Espinoza was released from prison, despite his record including felonies and being a known gangmember, based just on his claim that he was born in the USA without the Sheriff’s Dept./DA’s reps who oversaw this procedure, ever demanding proof to verify his claims re: his legal status.)
Since this statute refers to “arrests” this obligation would presumably preclude cops from tracking down illegal status of those ticketed for misdemeanours and minor traffic violations. However the Arizona law expanding this mandate to such people as well as those who commit no crime other than possibly being here illegally, set off the furor.
Again, I disagree that the city council should have issued this boycott at all, let alone without fully evaluating the financial and public safety impacts beforehand.
But the anger of the PPL at Chief Beck, and their campaign against him in their blog and the e-blasts quoting “Jack Dunphy,” for not dragging LAPD into the middle of the dispute after the fact is grossly misplaced. And another opportunity for Weber and his clique to wage their more general war against the Chief, continuing from how they kept after Bratton, including their explicitly stated objective of making the Chief’s office an elected one so they could buy their new Chief, answerable to their clique.
SF’s rants, which he thinks represents Weber’s views, are NOT about whether or not law enforcement enforces the statute you quote, working WITH state and federal gov’t., BUT about local law enforcement taking more pro-active measures identifying those whose principal crime IS being here illegally, IN LIEU OF state and gov’t. efforts which they deem sorely lacking (not without justification).
However, Chiefs of police, who unlike Weber have to be concerned with maximizing their efforts within a limited budget, and about legal liabilities, universally and understandably don’t want to take over the job of ICE. Therefore “Jack Dunphy” who clearly speaks for Weber since he always features his posts in their e-blasts, and blog, broadly proclaims that all Chiefs are diametrically opposed to all the rank & file, and are sell-outs whose views don’t deserve respect. Frankly, this blatant effort to undermine their Chief and usurp his authority with the troops looks to me like insubordination while demoralizing the troops.
So law enforcement officers don’t have the right to excersie their 1st Ammendment rights in the world of SBL, if they do it’s insubordination. Is SBL really Harry Edwards? Edwards called for officers not to have 5th Ammendment rights during the Ron Settles investigation at Signal Hill.
SBL wants street cops, well pretty much anyone that dares to disagree with Little Antonio’s mouthpiece Beck, to be treated as second class citizens. She’s ok though with stating facts about how officers will woik a law that’s not even in place yet.
SBL still doesn’t get it, the law mirrors federal law ehich the court has given the states the authority to put into place. What states can’t do is enact laws that are in conflict with federal laws in this area. Arizona’s law is not in conflict with federal law.
This is all abot our thug president whose made it pretty clear he wants immigration reform prior to doing everything he should to protect the border. Chicago politics being practiced in the Oval Office, like people didn’t see that coming.
SBL is happiest when attacking Baca, Cooley, Weber and Trutanich, you see one of their names in almost everything she puts up, her intentions are clear.
Total b.s. as usual from the left.
I’m sure SF also thinks it’s a travesty that “our thug president” and his misspeaking Vice Pres head civilian oversight of the military and had the authority to replace McCrystal for (far, far, far lesser and even semi-humorous) insubordination.
If Weber and the clique you list had their druthers, they’d return to the days of Daryl Gates’ virtual unchecked power; since there’s the matter of the pesky Consent Decree and all, they’re pushing to buy the office of Chief to be answereable to themselves. I.e., Weber, who’d love nothing better than to replace “that little Antonio” with his OWN mouthpiece, someone like group member Zine. Who’s looking for his next job, has expressed an interest in the Controller job, figuring he’s got little chance being appointed Chief unless they can buy a Republican mayor, first. If Weber and his clique owned their Chief instead, it’s clear they’d drag us into all kinds of murky at best constitutional and financial messes, trying to set policy that suits their rightwing views. Thank GOODNESS they don’t have that authority now – so they’re actively and constantly undermining the Chief instead.
The local civilian oversight of the law enforcement agencies was instituted for very good reasons, whatever one thinks of the current occupants of the mayor’s or city council offices. At least it forces issues out in the open and subject to lots of debate. (Contrary to the County Sheriff’s job relative to the circle-the-wagons 5 regal, and far wealthier – in terms of money they administer – but FAR less scrutinized, Board of Supervisors. Baca didn’t even have to run against opposition, despite the lawsuits and allegations – he has so managed to use his power to further consolidate his position. Making Baca overall rather prima-donna-ish, with Zev Yaroslavsky being the only one willing to call him out on that, like his refusal to process DNA rape kits until Human Rights Watch embarrassed the county in HuffPo. Imagine an LAPD Chief trying that.)
P. S. I’m referring of course, to the Baca refusal to process DNA rape kits to protest cuts imposed on his dept. by the BOS ’til HRW forced Zev to sit him down (and even Antonovich and/or Knabe gave him a bit of their minds). They were annoyed that he’d compromise public safety and subject the city to national approbation on human rights, to protest a relatively small budget cut they were required to impose. Just imagine if the Cty Sheriff (ANYONE in the job) didn’t have even the minimal civilian oversight of the BOS.
Here’s a litle history lesson for you SBL. First off I don’t have a problem with civilian oversight of the military though some of our presidents, like the current one, haven’t the experience or skin thick enough to deal correctly with 4 star generals that pissed them off.
When Truman replaced MacArthur and Lincoln replaced McClellan it was for matters of insubordination regarding McClellan’s actions in the Civil War and Macarthur’s in Korea while dealing mainly with China and the USSR. Both generals were given plenty of rope by their presidents and hung themselves. Obama has proceeded in a different manner. Obama is taking action based on a much lesser problem behavior by McChrystal. Obama doesn’t seem, to me anyway, to have the maturity or confidence in his own ability to be the Commander in Chief so he reacts in this manner.
I’d also add that times have changed and many people, for the weakest and silliest of reasons, get offended and respond in a manner way to harsh for the slight or offense that’s upset them. Add to that the fact that Obama came to power in the most corrupt political machine in the nation, Chicago’s, and it’s probably foolish to think he might show some actual leadership ability and put his arrogance and anger aside.
Sorry SBL, this is about the President’s feelings getting hurt and him over reacting. Mc Chrystal should have been disciplined, just not dumped. Here’s something interesting that Petraeus once said in an interview.
Multi-National Force – Iraq (Summer and Fall 2008)
In September 2008, Petraeus gave an interview to BBC News stating that he did not think using the term “victory” in describing the Iraq war was appropriate, saying “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”[128]
Petraeus had discussed the term ‘victory’ before in March 2008, saying to NPR News that “an Iraq that is at peace with itself, at peace with its neighbors, that has a government that is representative of—and responsive to—its citizenry and is a contributing member of the global community” could arguably be called ‘victory’.[129] On the eve of his change of command, in September 2008, Petraeus stated that “I don’t use terms like victory or defeat… I’m a realist, not an optimist or a pessimist. And the reality is that there has been significant progress but there are still serious challenges.”
———
That was an obvious backhanded swipe at his boss Bush. It shows to me one difference in Bush and Obama, one had thick skin and one has thin skin when it comes to being challenged by a subordinate.
Funny as well that Petraeus was Bush’s pick and McChrystal made 4 star under Obama. Obama blames Bush for so much and yet it’s his guy he’s turning to now.