California Cannabis pending law, Fall 2015- AB 266

Patient rights and Medicinal Marijuana Law

California cannabis legislation 2015  AB 266


AB 266


Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act of 2015


SUBJECT: Medical cannabis.

SUMMARY: Establishes a joint state-local agency licensing and regulatory framework for medical cannabis under the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act, and establishes the Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation within the Office of the Governor, the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation within the State Board of Equalization, the Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing within the Department of Public Health, and the Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation within the Department of Food and Agriculture, and sets forth the duties of the respective regulatory authorities.


This bill:


1) Establishes the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act.


2) Creates, within the office of the Governor, the Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation (OMCR), under the supervision and control of the Director of the OMCR.


3) Requires the OMCR Director to consult with state agencies possessing expertise in licensure and enforcement when developing a regulatory framework pursuant to the provisions of this bill. Gives the OMCR overall executive authority and responsibility for implementation of all expects of MM regulation, as well as coordination and oversight of all activities.


4) Requires the OMCR to maintain a registry of all permit holders and maintain a record of all state licenses and “commercial cannabis activity of the permit holder throughout the length of licensure and for a minimum of seven years following the expiration of each license. Requires OMCR to make limited licensee information available to a licensee so that it may verify whether it is engaging in commercial cannabis activities with a properly licensed entity.


5) Establishes the following entities that are required to report and be directly accountable to the OMCR for their respective designated responsibilities within the regulatory and enforcement framework:


  1. a) The Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation, within the State Board of Equalization (BOE), administered by a person hired by the BOE to administer provisions of this bill related to dispensaries and transporters;
  2. b) The Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing, within DPH, administered by a person appointed by DPH to administer provisions of this bill related to manufacturing, testing, and certification of testing laboratories for MM and MM products; and
  3. c) The Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation, within the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA), administered by a person appointed by DFA to administer provisions of this bill pertaining to cultivation of MM.


6) Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Natural Resources Agency to coordinate and direct the following entities in the discharge of their designated regulatory responsibilities:

  1. a) The State Water Resources Control Board in promulgating regulations related to discharge into waterways, and diversion therefrom, resulting from MM cultivation; and,
  2. b) The Department of Fish and Wildlife in promulgating regulations for the protection of any species affected by cultivation activity, and regulations

for any cultivation-related development, including alteration of waterways.

  1. c) The Department of Pesticide Regulations in promulgating regulations consistent with the Food and Agricultural Code.


7) Requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct the following activities:

  1. a) Conduct criminal background checks of applicants for licensure;
  2. b) Develop uniform security standards for dispensaries and all phases of transport covered by provisions of this bill; and,
  3. c) Provide supplemental enforcement on an as-needed basis at the request of the OMCR.


8) Gives authority to OMCR and licensing authorities to implement provisions of this bill, including, but not limited to, establishing rules and regulations; prescribing, adopting, and enforcing emergency regulations as necessary; issuing state licenses to persons for the cultivation, distribution, manufacture, transportation, and retail sale of MM within the state; setting application, licensing, and renewal fees for state licenses; establishing standards for commercial cannabis activity; establishing procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, denial, and revocation of state licenses; imposing penalties; taking action with respect to an application for a state license; overseeing the operation of the Medical Cannabis Regulation Fund; and consulting with other state or local agencies, departments, representatives of the MM community, or public or private entities for the purposes of establishing statewide standards and regulations. Requires the public’s health and safety to be the highest priority for the OMCR and the licensing authorities in exercising licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions.


9) Requires the OMCR, by April 1, 2016, to convene a task force to advise the OMCR on the development of standards, recommending appropriate roles for each state entity, and recommending guidelines on communication and information sharing between state entities, and with local agencies. Requires the task force to submit a report on the standards, determinations, and guidelines for implementation of provisions of this bill to the Legislature and affected state entities by August 1, 2016. Requires the task force to be comprised of 15 members, each of whom is appointed to a two-year term, as specified.


10) Requires the task force to work with representatives of MM patient groups and physicians to, before July 1, 2016, establish best practices and guidelines to ensure qualifies patients have adequate access to MM and MM products. Requires the best practices and guidelines to be sent in a report to the Legislature and to all local authorities that have implemented local ordinances that ban exempt individuals from engaging in cultivation or possession of MM or MM products within their jurisdictions. Specifies that this provision remains in effect only until January 1, 2017, unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends that date.


11) Requires each task force member to serve on a voluntary basis and to be responsible for costs associated with participation. Specifies that the licensing authorities are not responsible for travel costs incurred by task force members or for otherwise compensating task force members for costs associated with their participation.


Recommending MM

12) Makes it unlawful for a physician who recommends MM to accept, solicit, or offer any form of remuneration from or to a MM facility issued a state license if the physician or his or her immediate family have a financial interest in that facility. Makes a violation of this provision a misdemeanor.


13) Requires the MBC to consult with the CMRP on developing and adopting medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of MM.


14) Prohibits a physician from recommending MM to a patient, unless that person is the patient’s attending physician.


15) Adds to the MBC’s list of cases to investigate, on a priority basis, a physician recommending MM to patients for medical purposes without a good faith prior examination of the patient and medical reason therefor.


16) Specifies that recommending MM to a patient for a medical purpose without an appropriate prior examination and a medical indication constitutes unprofessional conduct.


17) Specifies that a person who practices medicine who is employed by, or has any other agreement with, a mandatory commercial licensee acting pursuant to the provisions of this bill or a dispensary to provide recommendations for MM constitutes unprofessional conduct.


Enforcement and local control


18) Requires each licensing authority to work in conjunction with local agencies for the purposes of implementing, administering, and enforcing provisions of this bill, and any regulations adopted, and taking appropriate action against licensees and others who fail to comply with the bill’s provisions or regulations.


19) Specifies that peace officers of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), members of the University of California and California State University police departments, and peace officers of the Department of Parks and Recreation, as specified, may visit and inspect the premises of a licensee.


20) Requires the OMCR, by January 1, 2017, in consultation with local governments, to develop an enforcement framework that clarifies the enforcement roles of the state and local governments consistent with provisions of this bill. Specifies that local agencies are authorized to enforce any state statutory or regulatory standard. Specifies that a state agency is not required to enforce a city, county, city and county, or local law, ordinance, rule, or regulation regarding the site or operation of a facility or transporter issued a state license.


21) Gives cities full power and authority to enforce rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the OMCR for facilities that are issued a state license and are located within the incorporated area of a city. Requires a city to further assume complete responsibility for any regulatory function relating to those licensees within city limits that would otherwise be performed by the county or any county officer or employee, including a county health officer, without liability, cost, or expense to the county. Gives counties full power and authority to enforce rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the OMCR for licensed facilities located within the unincorporated area of a county.


22) Requires state agencies to collaborate with local agencies to enforce state standards and regulations to the extent it is within the scope of other statutory responsibilities of local agencies and to the extent that resources for enforcement are available to the local agencies. Allows a city, county, or city and county to adopt ordinances that establish additional standards, requirements, and regulations for local licenses and permits for commercial cannabis activity. Requires the state to preempt local ordinances for all conflicts between state and local standards, requirements, and regulations regarding health and safety, testing, security, and worker protections.


23) Allows the director of a licensing authority or a district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor to bring an action to enjoin a violation or the threatened violation of any provision of this bill, including, but not limited to, a licensee’s failure to correct objectionable conditions. Requires a state or local agency to immediately notify the OMCR and the appropriate licensing authority of violations or arrests made for violations over which the licensing authority has jurisdiction that involve a licensee or licensed premises.


24) Requires the OMCR to establish procedures to provide any relevant state or local agencies and all licensing authorities, upon their request, with 24-hour access to information to verify a state license, track transportation manifests, and track the inventories of facilities issued a state license, as specified.


25) Prohibits the enforcement and local control provisions of this bill from superseding the provisions of Measure D, approved by the voters of the City of Los Angeles (L.A.) on the May 21, 2013, ballot, which provides potential limited immunity to MM businesses, as specified. Requires MM businesses within L.A. to continue to be subject to Measure D and any and all other applicable ordinances and regulations of L.A. Requires the BOE to enter into a memorandum of understanding with L.A. to establish protocols for the following:

  1. a) Tracking businesses granted immunity pursuant to Measure D;
  2. b) Tracking MM and MM products to and from L.A; and,
  3. c) Allowing for the legal transfer or MM and MM products from outside the jurisdiction of L.A. to within the city by licensees conducting commercial cannabis activities outside of the city.


26) Requires a person engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license to be subject to civil penalties of up to twice the amount of the licensee fee for each violation. Allows the OMCR, licensing authority, or court to order the destruction of MM associated with the violation.


27) Specifies that, to the extent it they do not interfere with or violate the CUA, the provisions of this bill do not prevent a city, county, or city and county from doing any of the following:

  1. a) Adopting local ordinances, whether consistent or inconsistent with enforcement and local control provisions, that do the following:

AB 266 (Bonta) Page 7 of 18

  1. Regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a licensee or a person that cultivates, processes, possesses, stores, manufactures, tests, transports, distributes, or sells MM.
  2. Prohibit commercial MM activity within their jurisdiction.
  3. b) Providing for the administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement of the ordinances described in a.) above.
  4. c) Establishing a fee for the operation within its jurisdiction of any of the following:
  5. A licensee.
  6. Another person that cultivates, processes, possesses, stores, manufactures, tests, transports, distributes, or sells MM or MM products.

iii. A person exempt from licensure.

  1. d) Enacting and enforcing other laws and ordinances to preserve local control.


28) Requires CHP to establish protocols to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle under the influence of MM and requires CHP to develop protocols setting forth best practices to assist law enforcement agencies.




29) Requires DFA to license cultivators; BOE to license dispensaries and transporters; and DPH to license manufacturers and certified testing laboratories.


30) Specifies that the licensure provisions of this bill do not apply to: a) qualified patients, pursuant to the CUA, who cultivate, possess, store, manufacture, or transport MM exclusively for personal medical use but who do not provide, donate, sell, or distribute MM to any other person; or b) primary caregivers who cultivate, possess, store, manufacture, transport, donate, or provide MM exclusively for the personal medical purposes of no more than five specified qualified patients for whom he or she is the primary caregiver, but who does not receive remuneration for these activities except for compensation in full compliance with provisions of the MMP.


31) Specifies that, to the extent this provision does not interfere with or violate the CUA, exemption from licensure for qualified patients and primary caregivers does not limit or prevent a city, county, or city and county from regulating or banning the cultivation, storage, manufacture, transport, provision, or other activity by the exempt person, or impair the enforcement of that regulation or ban.


32) Requires licensing authorities to promulgate regulations for implementation and enforcement of licensure, including, among various requirements, an applicant’s qualifications and a state licensee’s employee qualifications, including training and screening.


33) Allows licensing authorities to issue state licenses only to qualified applicants engaging in commercial cannabis activity and prohibits, beginning January 1, 2018, a person from engaging in commercial cannabis activity without possessing a state license and a local permit. Requires local permits to be determined by local ordinances. Gives authority to revoke state licenses and local permits to the respective licensing authorities and local agencies. Prohibits a licensing authority from issuing a license to an applicant who proposes to operate within L.A., regardless of the activity for which the license is sought.


34) Requires an applicant for a state license to, among other requirements: pay a fee; register with the licensing authority; provide a written description of the scope of business of the proposed facility; provide evidence that the applicant and owner have been legal full-time residents of the state for not less than four years; provide detailed written operating procedures; submit the applicant’s fingerprints to the DOJ; and, provide any information required by the licensing authority.


35) Specifies that revocation of a state license or local license or permit terminates the ability of a MM business to operate within the state, unless the state license or local license or permit is reissued or reinstated by the proper entity. Requires licensing authorities to, by regulation, prescribe conditions upon which a person whose state license has previously been denied, suspended, or revoked may be issued a state license.


36) Requires each licensing authority to deny an application for licensure or renewal, or suspend or revoke a state license for various reasons, including, but not limited to, making untrue statements, conduct that constitutes fraud or gross negligence, failure to comply with any rule or regulation, failure to submit requested information, and if an applicant, or any of its officers, directors, or owners, have been convicted of a felony criminal conviction for the possession for sale, sale, manufacture, transportation, or cultivation of a controlled substance, including a narcotic drug classified in Schedule II, III, IV, or V (but excluding marijuana), for drug trafficking involving a minor, a violent felony, a serious felony, a felony offense involving fraud or deceit, or any other felony that, in the licensing authority’s determination, would impair the applicant’s ability to appropriately operate as a state licensee. Allows a licensing authority, at its discretion, to issue a state license to an applicant that has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation (a Governor’s pardon).


Regulation of MM


37) Repeals existing law that allows qualified patients and their primary caregivers to collectively or cooperatively cultivate MM for medical purposes 180 days after the OMCR posts a notice on its Internet Web site that licensing authorities have commenced issuing provisional licenses, as specified.


38) Prohibits licensees, employees, or representatives of licensees from refusing, impeding, or interfering with an inspection pursuant to the provisions of this bill or local ordinance. Specifies that a violation of this provision is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine up to $5,000 or by civil penalties of up to $5,000.


39) Requires all licensees holding cultivation or manufacturing licenses to send all MM and MM products to a licensed processor for processing and testing prior to retail or sale of MM or MM products to a dispensary, qualified patient, or caregiver. Requires MM and MM products to be tested by a certified testing laboratory, licensed by DPH, prior to retail sale or dispensing to test for potency, pesticides, mold, rodenticide, and other contaminants of MM dried flower and for potency and purity of MM extracts.

40) Requires BOE to adopt a MM and MM product track and trace process for reporting the movement of MM items throughout the distribution chain that also employs secure

packaging and that is capable of providing information that captures, at a minimum, the licensee receiving the product; the transaction date; and any other information deemed necessary by BOE for the taxation and regulation of MM and MM products.


41) Requires licensing authorities to develop a database containing the electronic shipping manifests to be designed to flag irregularities for a licensing authority to investigate.


42) Prohibits MM packages and labels from being made to be attractive to children. Requires MM product labels to include, but not limited to, the following statements: “Keep out of reach of children and animals”; “For medical use only”; “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by up to two hours”; and warnings if nuts or other known allergens are used.


Cannabis employee certification and apprenticeship


43) Requires the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), to maintain minimum standards for the competency and training of employees of a licensed cultivator or dispensary through a system of testing and certification; maintain an advisory committee and panels as necessary; adopt regulations; issue certification cards to certified employees; and establish registration fees. Requires, by January 1, 2017, the DSLE to develop a certification program for cannabis employees. Requires all employees performing work as cannabis employees to be certified by January 1, 2019.




44) Allows the OMCR and other state agencies to assist state taxation authorities in the development of uniform policies for the state taxation of state licensees. States legislative intent to grant authority to the board of supervisors of a county to impose appropriate taxes on facilities licensed pursuant to provisions of this bill.




45) Requires, on or before March 1 of each year, the director of the OMCR to prepare and submit to the Legislature an annual report on OMCR’s activities and post it on OMCR’s Internet Web site to include, but not be limited to:

  1. a) The amount of funds allocated and spent by OMCR and licensing authorities for MM licensing, enforcement, and administration;
  2. b) The number of state licenses issued, renewed, denied, suspended, and revoked, by state license category;
  3. c) The average time for processing state license applications, by state license category;
  4. d) The number and type of enforcement activities conducted by the licensing authorities and by local law enforcement agencies in conjunction with the licensing authorities or the OMCR; and,
  5. e) The number, type, and amount of penalties, fines, and other disciplinary actions taken by the licensing authorities.




46) Deems as confidential any information identifying the names of qualified patients, their medical conditions, or the names of their primary caregivers received and contained in records kept by the OMCR or licensing authorities for the purposes of administering provisions of this bill, and prohibits disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.


Read More

California Cannabis Law pending, Fall 2015- AB243

Patient rights and Medicinal Marijuana Law

2015 California AB243


Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act,



This bill, titled the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act, creates a comprehensive state licensing and regulatory framework for the cultivation, processing, distribution, testing, and sale of medical cannabis. The bill includes provisions related to health and safety standards, which include medical cannabis testing and labeling; record-keeping; security; transportation; taxation; and certification of employees. Specifically, this bill:


1) Provides that, without limiting the authority of a city or county, the state shall have the exclusive right and power to regulate and license persons for the cultivation, manufacture, transportation, sale, and other related activities regarding medical cannabis in the state. Specifies it does not intend to preempt any local ordinance or prevent local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing ordinances that ban or regulate cannabis.


2) Exempts patients and primary caregivers, as defined, from commercial cannabis activity regulation. States it shall not apply to, and shall have no diminishing effect on, the rights and protections granted to a patient or a primary caregiver pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.


3) Establishes the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement, within the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), as the primary regulatory agency as it pertains to the sale, distribution, and transportation of commercial cannabis activity.


4) Establishes the Division of Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Testing, within the State Department of Public Health (CDPH), to administer provisions related to manufacturing, testing, and certification of testing laboratories. Requires CDPH to adopt labeling, packaging, sanitation, and testing standards.


5) Establishes the Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation within the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), to administer provisions related to cultivation of medical cannabis. Requires CDFA to adopt regulations and standards ensuring cultivation is in compliance with specified environmental and agricultural regulations and practices, and to establish weight and measure standards. Prohibits cannabis cultivation on public lands.


6) Requires a task force be convened to further specify the appropriate roles of regulatory authorities, and establish communication guidelines. Requires a report to the Legislature by August 1, 2016.


7) Requires the three divisions to issue tiered licenses specified in the bill, which depend on the level and type of activity, for commercial cannabis activity within their jurisdictions; establish licensing fees; establish applicant and employee qualifications, and requirements related to security, product disposal, marketing, and labeling; and enforce licensure provisions. Prohibits unlicensed activity.


8) Requires regulatory authorities to charge application processing fees to process licenses and license fees that reflect licensure regulatory costs. Requires license fees to be charged upon issuing a license. Requires fees to be set at an amount that will fairly and proportionately generate sufficient total revenue to fully cover the total regulatory costs.


9) Establishes the Medical Cannabis Control Fund as a continuously appropriated fund with four specified accounts. Requires fines and penalties to be deposited into an account in the fund, which is available upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of funding an enforcement grant program.


10) Requires specified state departments to enter into an interagency agreement to set forth their respective duties and reimbursement from the fund.


11) Requires regulatory authorities to adopt, as soon as practicable, emergency regulations establishing provisional licenses. Requires issuance of provisional licenses to individuals and entities that determined to have been, during the 3 months prior to January 1, 2016, conducting commercial cannabis activity in compliance with local ordinances. Considers entities provided immunity under Los Angeles’s Measure D as compliant.


12) States it does not prevent local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing a zoning or other law, ordinance, or regulation that regulates the location, operation, or establishment of commercial cannabis activity. States it does not prevent a city or county from adopting specified local ordinances inconsistent with its provisions.


13) Makes licensure for persons who are not local permit holders contingent on proof the applicant has received permission from local authorities for commercial cannabis activities.


14) Allows local jurisdictions to impose a temporary local suspension of the license of a commercial licensee for up to 30 days for violations of this chapter or a local ordinance.


15) Authorizes boards of supervisors to impose, by ordinance, applicable to voter approval requirements, a tax on cultivation, storing, distributing or selling marijuana by a licensee. Limits total taxation of state and local authorities to 25 percent of retail prices.


16) Specifies civil penalties of up to twice the amount of the license fee for each incident of unlicensed activity. Requires penalties collected pursuant to action brought by the Attorney General to be deposited into the General Fund.


17) Requires the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to conduct research to determine whether a driver is operating a vehicle under the influence of cannabis, and to assist law enforcement agencies to establish best practices. Funds this activity through the fines and penalties account.


18) Requires the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement in the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to develop employee competency and training certification standards for cultivation and dispensing. Creates a one-time $25 registration fee which is deposited in the Fund. Requires employee certification by January 1, 2019.


19) Requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (in DIR) to convene an advisory committee to evaluate whether there is a need to develop industry-specific regulations. Requires the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (in DIR) to adopt regulations governing apprenticeship programs.

201520160AB34_Assembly Appropriations-

Read More

Sonoma County Family Court Case Search

If you are wondering if you have an upcoming court case, or you are not sure if you have court soon because you are kept in the dark by your lawyer, this link takes you to the searchable database for Sonoma County Superior court, going out 3 sonoma county court case infomonths from the date of the search. This covers all upcoming Family Law and Civil court dates.  If you are looking for information on a Criminal Case in Sonoma County, go here.

Civil and Family law searchable court date Calendar for Sonoma County.

Read More

Marin County Court Case Information

Common questions I hear all the time, from clients, passersby, and even lawyers is  “How do I find out if I have court?” Most counties in the bay area, including Sonoma, Marin, and San Francisco, have searchable online court calendars and information for criminal as well as civil and family law court. Marin Court Information

In Marin, you can find out information about your current court case here

If you are looking for information about an old court case in Marin, go here

Read More

Lawmakers about to pass path to legal residency and citizenship for residents without status

In the US congress today, it was announced that there has been a deal between lawmakers for a new immigration reform bill. the details have not been released as of yet, but it appears that the preliminary reports show that:

1. There is a path to legal permanent resident status and eventually citizenship.
2. The law will affect those persons who can show that they were present in the US prior to 2012.
3. A fee will be assessed as a penalty, and there will be a lengthy application form requiring a significant amount of evidence proving that the immigrant is in compliance with the law in all other aspects, including not being convicted of any major crimes.
Immigration Law Santa Rosa

Contact this office to discuss your case with an Attorney. We will be offering attorney services for a low flat rate to help with the application process.

Read More

What Immigration Reform May Mean for California -kqed radio

What Immigration Reform May Mean for California

Immigration Law Santa Rosa


Federal lawmakers are putting the finishing touches on several competing immigration reform bills — some of which may debut next week. One way or another, they’re all expected to include some kind of path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people already in the country illegally. Reporter: Rachael Myrow

Stream the entire broadcast online:


Rachael Myrow, Host: Federal lawmakers are putting the finishing touches on several competing immigration reform bills, and we should see one or more of them debut next week. One way or another they’re all expected to include some path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people already in the country illegally. While that political drama unfolds in Washington, D.C., we turn to a man in Fresno with a strong sense of what those reforms could mean on the ground level for California. Don Riding spent nearly 40 years with what was called the INS and what we now call the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency. Thank you, Don Riding, for talking with us.

Don Riding: You’re welcome!

Myrow: What did you like about the amnesty program of 1986?

Riding: What I liked about it is the fact that people who had been working here for many years were finally able to come forward. A lot of people don’t understand that the reason the amnesty program was needed was because of a 1976 change in the law. It used to be, prior to Jan. 1, 1977, that if anyone from the Northern Hemisphere — primarily Mexico — was here and had a child born in the U.S., they could immigrate almost immediately. They didn’t have to wait 21 years for the child to petition for them. So prior to ’77, if someone came here illegally with a family and they had a child born here they could immigrate. When that stopped in ’77, all of the sudden all of those people could no longer immigrate. And by ’86 we had a couple million people who previously — not all of them because they didn’t all have children born here but many of them — would have qualified under the old rules. Prior to ’77 there was no limit on how many people from Mexico could immigrate. Congress changed the rules in ’77 and then got surprised when there were unexpected consequences.

Myrow: Unexpected consequences like what?

Riding: By placing a numerical limit on how many people can immigrate from Mexico, it took 10 years for the Mexicans who filed petitions to immigrate in ’77 — the first year of the new law — it took them 10 years for all of them to immigrate. These are people who legally immigrated, who qualified, who all of a sudden had to wait their turn. So, you can imagine: What about the people who applied in, you know, in ’79, ’80, ’81, even longer. As it is today, in the category of brothers and sisters of Mexicans, there are approximately 750,000 approved visa petitions for Mexicans in that category. If you do the math for how many are allowed each year, the waiting time is 163 years, four months!

Myrow: What do you think of the new proposals being floated in Washington, D.C.?

Riding: They’re not bad. To say that they’re perfect — no, they’re not. But you’re not going to deport 11 or 12 million people. Now there needs to be some requirements, and they’re trying to put the requirements in. A lot of people don’t understand, they say, “Well, these people have to pay their taxes.” Most of them already are. When I first came to California in 1984, I went around to the various immigrant communities and asked, “How many of you get paid in cash under the table?” Everybody raised their hands. By 2011, when I retired, I asked the same question and everybody raised their hands and said they get paid with checks. What happened is that part of the amnesty program included employer sanctions. Employer sanctions forced people to get counterfeit documents.  So even though they might have got paid in a different name, everybody today is being paid with a check. Which means that employers are taking out money for Social Security. They are taking out money for state and federal taxes.  They are taking out money for all the things they’re supposed to. So when these reformers say, “Well they have to pay the back taxes,” they’re already paying them, almost all of them.

Myrow: What do you think would happen to the Central Valley’s $26 billion farm economy if federal lawmakers required farmers to clean house before importing any workers.

Riding: This basically happened in Washington and Oregon following the amnesty program. There was supposed to be a replenishment agriculture worker program that would allow people to harvest the crops illegally and the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labor together were to determine how many workers we needed in agriculture those years. Well, the problem was, to determine how many workers were needed they went to the state unemployment offices and asked, ‘how many workers have farmers come and asked for?’  Farmers don’t go the unemployment office to ask for workers. They came back with a report, ‘we need zero agriculture workers.’ And boysenberries and crops like that rotted on the vines in Southern Washington 

 Courtesy California Report, KQED

Read More

Qué reforma migratoria puede significar para California

¿Qué reforma migratoria puede significar para California

Cortesía del informe de California

Stream en línea todo el programa de audio:

Los legisladores federales están dando los toques finales a varios proyectos de ley de reforma migratoria que compiten – algunos de los cuales pueden debutar la próxima semana. De un modo u otro, todos son espera que incluya algún tipo de camino hacia la ciudadanía para los aproximadamente 11 millones de personas que ya están en el país ilegalmente. Periodista: Rachael MyrowImmigration Law Santa Rosa

Rachael Myrow, Host: los legisladores federales están dando los toques finales a varios proyectos de ley de reforma migratoria en competencia, y deberíamos ver una o más de ellas debut la próxima semana. De un modo u otro están todos espera que incluya algún camino a la ciudadanía para un estimado de 11 millones de personas que ya están en el país ilegalmente. Mientras que el drama político se desarrolla en Washington, DC, pasamos a un hombre en Fresno con un fuerte sentido de lo que esas reformas podrían significar en la planta baja de California. Don Riding pasó casi 40 años, con lo que se llamó el INS y lo que ahora llamamos la Ciudadanía de los EE.UU. y la Agencia de Servicios de Inmigración. Gracias, Don Riding, para hablar con nosotros.
Don Riding: No hay de qué!
Myrow: ¿Qué te gusta del programa de amnistía de 1986?
Riding: Lo que me gustó es el hecho de que las personas que habían estado trabajando aquí durante muchos años por fin pudieron presentarse. Mucha gente no entiende que la razón era necesario el programa de amnistía fue a causa de un cambio en la ley de 1976. Lo que solía ser, con anterioridad al 1 de enero de 1977, que si alguien desde el Hemisferio Norte – principalmente México – estaba aquí y tenía un niño nacido en los EE.UU., podrían emigrar casi de inmediato. Ellos no tuvieron que esperar 21 años para que el niño a pedir por ellos. Así que antes de 77, si alguien vino aquí ilegalmente con una familia y tuvieron un hijo nacido aquí podían inmigrar. Cuando que se detuvo en el 77, todos de la repentina de todas aquellas personas ya no podía emigrar. Y al ’86 tuvimos un par de millones de personas que antes – no todos ellos, ya que no todos los niños han nacido aquí, pero muchos de ellos – se hayan beneficiado de las viejas reglas. Antes del ’77 no había límite de cuántas personas podrían emigrar de México. Congreso cambió las reglas en el 77 y luego se sorprendió cuando hubo consecuencias inesperadas.
Myrow: consecuencias inesperadas como qué?
Equitación: Al colocar un límite numérico de la cantidad de personas pueden inmigrar de México, que tomó 10 años para los mexicanos que presentaron solicitudes para emigrar en el 77 – el primer año de la nueva ley – que les tomó 10 años para todos a emigrar. Estas son personas que inmigraron legalmente, que se clasificó, que de repente tuvo que esperar su turno. Por lo tanto, se puede imaginar: ¿Qué pasa con las personas que solicitaron, ya sabes, en el ’79, ’80, ’81, incluso más tiempo. Como lo es hoy, en la categoría de los hermanos y hermanas de los mexicanos, hay aproximadamente 750.000 solicitudes de visa para los mexicanos aprobados en esa categoría. Si usted hace la matemáticas para cuántos se les permite cada año, el tiempo de espera es de 163 años, cuatro meses!
Myrow: ¿Qué piensa usted de las nuevas propuestas que se flotaban en Washington, DC?
Equitación: No son malos. Decir que eres perfecto – no, no lo son. Pero no vamos a deportar a 11 ó 12 millones de personas. Ahora es necesario que haya algunos requisitos, y están tratando de poner los requisitos pulg Muchas personas no entienden, ellos dicen: “Bueno, esta gente tiene que pagar sus impuestos”. La mayoría de ellos ya son. Cuando llegué por primera vez a California en 1984, di la vuelta a las diversas comunidades de inmigrantes y preguntó: “¿Cuántos de ustedes se les paga en efectivo bajo la mesa?” Todos levantaron la mano. En 2011, cuando me retiré, me hizo la misma pregunta y todos levantaron la mano y dijeron que se les paga con cheques. Lo que pasa es que parte del programa de amnistía incluidas sanciones a los empleadores. Las sanciones a empleadores obligaban a la gente a obtener documentos falsos. Así que a pesar de que puede ser que tenga pagado en un nombre diferente, todo el mundo hoy en día se está pagando con un cheque. Lo que significa que los empresarios están sacando dinero de la Seguridad Social. Están sacando dinero de los impuestos estatales y federales. Están sacando dinero por todas las cosas que se supone que. Así que cuando estos reformadores dicen: “Bueno, ellos tienen que pagar los impuestos atrasados”, que ya están pagando, casi todos ellos.
Myrow: ¿Qué crees que pasaría a la economía del Valle Central granja $ 26 mil millones si los legisladores federales requieren a los agricultores a limpiar la casa antes de importar cualquier trabajador.
Equitación: Básicamente, esto sucedió en Washington y Oregon siguiendo el programa de amnistía. No se supone que es un programa de trabajadores agrícolas reposición que permita a la gente para cosechar los cultivos de manera ilegal y el Departamento de Agricultura y el Departamento de Trabajo en conjunto habrían de determinar cuántos trabajadores se necesitan en la agricultura esos años. Bueno, el problema era determinar cuántos trabajadores se necesitan acudieron a las oficinas estatales de desempleo y preguntó: “¿Cuántos trabajadores han llegado a los agricultores y pedí?” Los agricultores no ir a la oficina de desempleo para pedir a los trabajadores. Volvieron con un informe, “necesitamos cero los trabajadores agrícolas. ‘Y moras y cultivos como el que se pudría en los viñedos en el sur de Washington

Traducción cortesía de Google Translate

Read More

You can afford help from a Lawyer for your divorce.

Ramsey Law office, providing Attorney Services for Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and the entire North Bay, offers a wide range of services and pricing plans to suit every budget.  We understand that divorce can be confusing  and there is no reason that you should have to risk your happiness and financial well being by doing your own divorce.  Let the experienced Family divorce law, asylum law, and Medical marijuana defenseLaw Attorneys in Santa Rosa or Sebastopol discuss how we can help you in your  divorce or other family law case. Consultations are free, and here is a sampling of our flat rate pricing:

  • Uncontested default divorce     starting at $520 
  • Step-parent adoption    Starting at $500
  • Custody and Support Motions  starting at $600

It doesn’t hurt to ask, and with the help of an experienced attorney, you can rest easy that your rights are being protected and you are not being taken advantage of by your ex.

Contact this office today to set up a free consultation.


Read More

FAQ’s about new 2013 Immigration Waiver law

Question: What is the program called?
Answer: Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver

Question:  What is it?
Answer: Technically, the new law is more of a policy change regarding the process of how the family member of a US Citizen gets a visa to be in the US.

Question: What does the new Program do?
Answer: The new Policy changes the time that a family member of a US citizen can apply for a waiver of inadmissibility when they currently unlawfully present in the US.

Question: Does that mean the law has changed and when an illegal immigrant marries a US Citizen he or she automatically becomes a US Citizen?
Answer: No.  The Law regarding marriage and immigration has not changed. Period.  Ramsey Law Office Sebastopol

Question: How can this help me?
Answer: If you are married to a US citizen, in the US unlawfully, and seeking to get legal status, this law means that the time you may have to spend outside the US when you depart to have your Consular Interview may be significantly less.

Question: What should I do now?
Answer: If you are married to a US citizen and in the US with an unlawful status, it is important that you talk to a local immigration attorney to discuss all the new developments in Immigration law.


Read More

News on new Immigration Policies for California

Immigration Impact

Another migrant child died after being in U.S. custody this week—the fifth child since December 2018. These tragic deaths raise serious concerns about conditions in border facilities and the lack of adequate medical care. 16-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, the most recent child to die in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody, was held […]

The post The Death Toll of Migrant Children in US Custody Continues to Rise appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 21, 2019, 9:07 pm

President Trump unveiled an immigration proposal last week that would make drastic changes to our family-based immigration system and impose new security measures at our southern border. While the United States has not made major changes to its immigration system in over three decades, any meaningful immigration reform must address the needs of our current […]

The post DACA and TPS Beneficiaries Must Be Part of Any Conversation About Immigration Reform appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 20, 2019, 9:08 pm

President Trump announced his new plan for overhauling the legal immigration system on Thursday. The plan is short on details, but it rests on principles that the Trump administration has touted before. Specifically, the proposal emphasizes the desire to radically curtail family-based immigration while prioritizing certain attributes that are viewed as an expression of “merit.” […]

The post White House’s Misguided Immigration Reform Plan Is Set for Failure appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 17, 2019, 8:18 pm

Amid growing calls for reforming the immigration court system, last week the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) sparked criticism when it put out a document “Myths vs. Facts About Immigration Proceedings.” The document, which claimed to bust 18 different “myths,” seemed intended to assuage concerns about the agency. Instead, it was met with widespread […]

The post Immigration Judges and Advocates Criticize Immigration Court System for ‘Propaganda’ appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 16, 2019, 9:59 pm

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is resuming its controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy. This policy requires asylum-seeking Central American migrants who arrive at our Southern border to return to Mexico to await their immigration court hearings in the United States. A federal judge in California had previously blocked the policy’s implementation until the court […]

The post Federal Court Allows Controversial ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy to Continue appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 15, 2019, 8:04 pm

There are two pervasive trends taking hold in America today. One is deepening polarization and seemingly insurmountable political and cultural divides. And thanks to the rise in social media and the decline in membership in civic and faith groups, we are also becoming a nation of lonely-loners. Our country is plagued by too much individualism […]

The post Working Together Towards Shared Goals Can Help Heal America’s Deepest Divides appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 14, 2019, 7:11 pm

More immigrants facing deportation are requesting “voluntary departure” from the United States instead of fighting their cases in court. Voluntary departure is a process though which certain immigrants who the government is trying to deport in immigration court leave the United States without receiving a removal order. The number of applications for voluntary departure in […]

The post More Immigrants Requesting to Return to Their Countries of Origin Under Threat of Deportation appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 13, 2019, 8:35 pm

The Florida legislature recently passed SB 168 with the stated intent of ensuring that state officials and agencies fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in enforcing immigration law. SB 168 could have far-reaching consequences in a state where one in five residents is an immigrant. SB 168 would prohibit any state/local entity or law enforcement […]

The post How Florida’s SB 168 Will Benefit the Private Prison Industry appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 10, 2019, 10:23 pm

New York Magazine, this week, tells the story of a Trump-Loving Town and its Favorite Undocumented Immigrant. The story features Alex Garcia, a native of Honduras, who has built deep personal relationships with his working class, Trump-supporting neighbors who are now organizing to prevent his deportation. Alex moved to Poplar Bluff, Missouri (population 17,000) in […]

The post Trump-Supporting Missouri Town Mounts Campaign to Protect One of Its Own from Deportation appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 9, 2019, 9:19 pm

Each new generation of immigrants to the United States has, in time, achieved a high degree of integration into U.S. society. Whether it was immigrants from southern and eastern Europe a century ago, or immigrants from Asia and Latin America today, newcomers eventually master English, settle into U.S. communities and workplaces, and contribute to the […]

The post How Has Immigration Changed in the Last 100 Years? appeared first on Immigration Impact.

Posted: May 8, 2019, 12:00 pm
Read More