ShareThis Page
Nation

California's 'anti-Arizona' bill would protect illegals

| Wednesday, July 4, 2012, 8:40 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — While America's debate over immigration has been dominated recently by crackdowns in states such as Arizona and Alabama, California legislators are trying to turn that tide with a bill to protect illegal immigrants that they dub the “anti-Arizona.”

Last week, the top U.S. court upheld the most controversial aspect of Arizona's immigration statute: a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they stop, even for minor offenses such as jaywalking.

Enter California, a border state that is home to the largest number of illegal immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics, and is considerably more liberal than its neighbor Arizona.

A measure working its way through the California legislature would block local law enforcement from referring a detainee to immigration officials for deportation unless that person has been convicted of a violent or serious felony.

“California cannot afford to become another Arizona,” said California Assembly member Tom Ammiano, the bill's sponsor.

Another sponsor, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, calls the effort the “anti-Arizona.”

Critics have argued that Arizona's law could lead to illegal racial or ethnic profiling of Hispanics in the state.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me