Analysis of Immigration Law Proposed for 2012 California Ballot

Soon, in a grocery store parking lot near you, a professional signature gatherer will be asking you to sign a petition authorizing an Arizona-style state immigration law to appear on the 2012 ballot.  The law is the handiwork of former Sonoma County GOP Charmian, Michael Erickson.  Erickson split off from the mainstream GOP and founded a group called Republicans for the National Interest.  Here is an initial, preliminary analysis of his work – more in depth in this in the weeks and months ahead.

What it would look like if this ballot intiative passed in 2012 and was upheld by the federal courts:

1)      Police can stop and search citizens based on the belief that they are illegal immigrants.  – Police can stop California citizens and ask them to provide documentation which shows that they are in the United States legally.  This would have far reaching effects for law enforcement.  In Los Angeles, it would potentially eradicate “Special Order 40” a three-decade old internal LAPD policy which prohibits police officers from inquiring as to the immigration status of citizens, whether they are suspects in a crime or not.

No matter what you may think of LAPD, Special Order 40 is good policy.  Both crime victims and witnesses should be able to go to the police with information and not fear they will be arrested based on immigration status.  Changing this law would make police work impossible in some of LA’s most violent and impoverished communities. Erickson told the SacBee that  “the difference with Arizona’s law…, is that officers would have to contact federal immigration authorities and conduct such a check within a ‘timely manner’ and could not hold a person for a long period of time.”  We really couldn’t find anything in the law that addresses this concern or find any definition in the law of what constitutes  a “timely manner”, perhaps Mr. Erickson will point it out for us.

2)      Makes it a crime to “conceal” or “transport” an undocumented immigrant. Here is who would be subject to arrest:  Family members who let undocumented relatives live with them, religious missionaries who provide transportation to church events, volunteers form charity organizations who provide services to communities in need.  We wonder what happens to volunteers  who drive around in vans and encourage the homeless to come into shelters for the evening.   The punishment for “conealing” or “transporting” under 10 immigrants is a misdemeanor subject to six months in jail and a maximum $5,000 fine.  Over 10 people is a felony subject to “incarceration in a California State Prison for a minimum of one year.”  By the way, this ”minimum of one year” in prison is a bizarre and unlawful sentence under California’s determinate sentencing laws, Erickson is a lawyer though…or is he?  More on that later.  Anyway, you’d think they’d at least get criminal lawyers to write these things.

3)      Employer subject to criminal penalties under state law for employing undocumented immigrants. This one is really a beauty.  Here’s how it works:  The federal government needs to “communicate to the District Attorney” whether or not an undocumented immigrant or someone without a work visa was employed illegally. If the person is convicted of in federal court of illegal entry or violating the the terms of a visa, The DA is then required to file criminal charges under state law against the employer. The state court then must “expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.”  Right, because this sort of crime is far more important than violent felonies…Then for a first violation here’s the punishment for the employer:

1)      Employer must fire the undocumented workers.

2)      Employer must be on “probation” for five years.  During the is probationary period, the employer must file quarterly reports with the District Attorney’s office detailing the immigration status for  “each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. The quarterly reports shall indicate the measures undertaken with the hiring and maintaining of each new employee during the period covered by the quarterly report to insure compliance with this Act…”

3)      The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend “all licenses that are held by the employer for a minimum of thirty business days.” Court can order a longer suspension if they find aggravating circumstances.

4)      The court must order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the Distract Attorney which swears, under the penalty of California’s perjury law (which is a straight felony) that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an undocumented worker.

5)      For a second violation, there is a $5,000 fine and the business permanently loses its business license for the location in which the undocumented immigrant worked.

4) Bizarre traffic law aimed at preventing people from picking up day laborer’s outside of Home Depot. Check this one out, it really speaks for itself.

A, It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway,

or highway to· attempt to hire or to hire and pick up passengers fo; work at a different

location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic,

B, It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street,

roadway, or highway in order to “be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be

transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the

normal movement of traffic.

5)      If local governments try to limit the state law, private citizens can sue the local governments. OK, this really confuses us.  On one hand, the tea party credo is all about local control and they talk a big game about “nullifying federal law” by using state laws such as this proposed ballot measure.  But, if a local county or city government really wants to exert control by “nullifying” the state law and not going along with these strict immigration measures for valid reasons involving federalism (more on that too…), that local government can be sued by someone who does not even live in the offending city or county.   In other words, let’s say the city of Santa Monica refuses to go along with this nonsense and passes an ordinance that this new immigration law will be ignored, then they are subject to a lawsuit by someone who lives in a completely different part of the State.

More on this soon.  Stay tuned…