Steinberg's office responds

CalWatchdog just received this response from Darrell Steinberg’s communications director Nathan Barankin regarding this recent blog post:

I read your blog post about the exchange of correspondence between Senator Steinberg and a constituent regarding the State of Arizona’s new immigration law.  And because I know you disdain ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism, I want to alert you to an error in your post.

The California law to which you refer, Penal Code section 834b, was ruled unconstitutional in 1997.  In other words, the statute is void.

Regardless, even if section 834b was in effect, it is not “practically identical” to the Arizona statute – even as most recently amended.  The Arizona statute is considerably broader, requiring investigation into the immigration status of a person pursuant to a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”  The California law, which was found unconstitutional, was limited only to “arrests,” and so it is clear that the Arizona law is more expansive since it also applies to “stops” and “detentions.”  If you still have questions about the significance of these terms and the differences between the two statutes, I encourage you to contact an attorney who is an expert on criminal procedure and the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Related Articles

New reports show CA is sinking

As use of California’s groundwater supply reaches an all-time high, the state’s drought-induced sinking has put California land at historic

‘Unemployed’ Protected From Employers

Katy Grimes: The state is trying to prevent employers from legally looking into the employment backgrounds of job applicants. A

Eco-phony Arnold tools around in gas-guzzling Mercedes SLS AMG

March 11, 2013 By John Seiler According to the Daily Mail: “He has been seen enjoying a number of dates