# California legislation proves once again that they're flat-out nuts **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2008, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187 "2008-08-16T04:13:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2008, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/21 "2008-08-16T17:24:27Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] How do they encourage the illegals? Seriously. Just by being in business? I’m not aware of them having taken any action in the past to encourage them. [/QUOTE] Pretty much just by being in business. It’s arguably beneficial to HD that people who are so inclined can get materials and grunt labor in one convenient place - symbiotic, as it were. And it’s certainly predictable that the day laborers will start hanging around any new big-box store, so I see nothing wrong in insisting that the stores take whatever measures are needed to keep that nuisance under control. We expect shopping malls to hire security personnel, no? If Home Depot had been a bit proactive in keeping day laborers away (i.e, calling the police to report loiterers or whatever the legal term is), they could’ve avoided this legislation. As it stands now, HD adds the cost of running the day laborer shelters to their prices, and in the end, their customers (who, after all, are the reason that day laborers hang out in the first place) get to subsidize the entire setup. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/22 "2008-08-16T17:36:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Having day laborers hanging around Home Depot provides a convenience to Home Depot’s customers, in that they don’t have to drive down the street to the 7-11 or whatever. Fine. If Home Depot wants workers to hang out on its property waiting for day work, then it can choose to put out amenities to attract them. My point is that they shouldn’t be required to do so. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2008, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/23 "2008-08-16T18:14:41Z")
[QUOTE=Twoflower] Sounds to me like your real issue here is with the low-ball contractors who hire the day laborers, and that providing facilities at HD is essentially a subsidy for these guys. I think that’s a totally legitimate complaint, and I’d be inclined to agree with you. But by cloaking it in moral outrage and accusing Californians of being nuts because the LA City Council came down on the side of the humanitarian needs of the day laborers, you lost me. [/QUOTE] There will always be the guys who skirt laws to keep their prices down. Those who are foolish and/or cheap enough to ignore illegal practices will hire them, and they deserve what they get. My bitch is that a retailer (and therefore, all of its customers) shouldn’t have to support something of this nature. If NDLON negotiated to lease a small area of parking lot and put up the facility, provided amenities and maintained them, then they’d be supporting their own goals, but instead, they put up nada, and every customer gets to chip in. Although they don’t have a monopoly on it, sufficient batshit craziness has come out of California in the form of laws to justify the generalization. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/24 "2008-08-16T18:28:27Z")
[QUOTE=Spiny Norman] Pretty much just by being in business. It’s arguably beneficial to HD that people who are so inclined can get materials and grunt labor in one convenient place - symbiotic, as it were. And it’s certainly predictable that the day laborers will start hanging around any new big-box store, so I see nothing wrong in insisting that the stores take whatever measures are needed to keep that nuisance under control. We expect shopping malls to hire security personnel, no? [/QUOTE] But they are not encouraging illegal activity by hiring security guards. Home Depot is. If I was in charge of the INS I’d go after HD, the same way they go after businesses that hire illegals. This can easily be construed as a payment of kind. I think they’re nuts for doing this for another reason, as well. If some work is botched or some item goes missing, the homeowner might go to HD for recompense. If a homeowner goes back to find a day laborer and can’t find them, they might seek help for HD itself. If I were on a jury in such a case I don’t know who I’d think more deserving of feeling the pain. The homeowner, for hiring the illegal or HD for encouraging the illegal trade. [QUOTE=Spiny Norman] If Home Depot had been a bit proactive in keeping day laborers away (i.e, calling the police to report loiterers or whatever the legal term is), they could’ve avoided this legislation. As it stands now, HD adds the cost of running the day laborer shelters to their prices, and in the end, their customers (who, after all, are the reason that day laborers hang out in the first place) get to subsidize the entire setup. [/QUOTE] The should simply refuse to do it. **Little Nemo** makes a good point. They shouldn’t be forced to do this. And if they do it on their own, which they have a right to do, let them suffer any and all consequences for promoting illegal activity. The next time I’m near a HD I will make a point of stopping in and letting the manager know what I think. Come to think of it, I think I have some HD stock in my portfolio, I’m going to sell it and write a nice letter to the board of directors beforehand as to why. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/25 "2008-08-16T18:32:32Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Encourage might be the wrong word-- allow might be better. But clearly, they are benefiting from it or they wouldn’t allow it. As I said, the HD near my house no longer allows day laborers to congregate in the parking lot, and they don’t. [/QUOTE] Fair enough. What needs to be done then is for this activity to cause them some pain. If i were a contractor, carpenter, etc., I would refuse to shop at HD and encourage my fellow tradesmen to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/26 "2008-08-18T13:55:27Z")
… so… **Danceswithcats** and **Magellan01** are OK with this as long as the day laborers are legal, but if the are illegals it’s bad…right? or am I to assume they think all day laborers are illegals? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/27 "2008-08-18T14:27:58Z")
Home Depot has three choices here: 1. Chase trespassing and loitering day laborers off of their property. 2. Allow day laborers to hang out on their property as a convenience to their customers, and provide the necessary amenities (toilets, chairs, water) for them to do so without trashing the neighborhood. 3. Allow day laborers to hang out on their property as a convenience to their customers, but blow off the associated costs as an externality to be borne by the neighborhood. The law removes (3) as a possibility, which seems reasonable to me. The immigration status of the laborers is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/28 "2008-08-18T14:48:40Z")
[QUOTE=Death of Rats] … so… **Danceswithcats** and **Magellan01** are OK with this as long as the day laborers are legal, but if the are illegals it’s bad…right? or am I to assume they think all day laborers are illegals? [/QUOTE] I think most people assume that day laborers are all illegals- not the case at all, at least around here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/29 "2008-08-18T16:31:16Z")
[QUOTE=EJsGirl] I think most people assume that day laborers are all illegals- not the case at all, at least around here. [/QUOTE] Given the crash in housing construction, probably not the case anywhere. HD is a place for legal workers to go to try to get jobs when nothing else has come up. BTW, the HD nearest to me (which moved into the site of a defunct K-Mart) is right in a residential area. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/30 "2008-08-18T17:09:05Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] But they are not encouraging illegal activity by hiring security guards. Home Depot is. If I was in charge of the INS I’d go after HD, the same way they go after businesses that hire illegals. This can easily be construed as a payment of kind. [/quote] What would you charge Home Depot with? Allowing people to congregate on its own private property? Your assertion that HD is effectively paying these people “in kind” is ludicrous. To my knowledge, Home Depot is not responsible for checking the immigration status of every individual who steps onto their property. If we follow your argument through, then Home Depot (and every other retailer, for that matter) should begin to require a US passport or a green card or a valid visitor’s visa as a condition of entry to the parking lot. As for the INS going after Home Depot “the same way they go after businesses that hire illegals,” the fact is that the INS (now DHS) has traditionally done jack shit about businesses who hire illegals. Their standard practice is to drop in, sweep up all the illegals and ship them home, then give the business a mild slap on the wrist and move on. The business, of course, waits for the INS to leave, then turns around and hires another bunch of illegals. If the government were as zealous about prosecuting businesses that hire illegals as it is about catching illegals, i’d have more sympathy for American immigration policies. As it is, however, they talk a tough game, while ensuring that the only people punished are the illegals themselves. They’ve gotten a _little_ bit better over the past few years, prosecuting some business owners, but the enforcement of American immigration policies has generally been targetted almost exclusively at the supply side (fences; border patrols; roundups), and not at the demand side (the Americans who actually hire the illegals). This is rank hypocrisy, in my opinion, and is also a method of enforcement that ensures the problem will not go away. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/31 "2008-08-18T17:36:04Z")
I don’t see why Home Depot should be held responsible because somebody on its property broke a law a hundred miles away sometimes last year. These people don’t work for Home Depot so how are they Home Depot’s responsibility? In my opinion, the solution to illegal immigration is to legalize it. I don’t see why there should be a law against people coming to this country to work. That’s how my family got here. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/32 "2008-08-18T17:46:38Z")
[QUOTE=even sven] Call me wacky, but I think it’s a good idea. Regardless of status, the laborers are going to be there, and if they are causing problems in the surrounding neighborhoods, something needs to be done about it. Why is this Home Depot’s problem? Because Home Depot is profiting off of this. Unless you can really convince me that they have done all that they can to discourage day laborers… [/QUOTE] Then why doesn’t the city build the shelters if they’re so worried about these knuckleheads? Putting it up the kiester of the buisness to put up what are essentially squatters huts puts HD or any other corporation at an unfortunate and unnecessary liability. If one of these jerkasses hurts themselves on, at, or near the shelter, you can bet your bottom peso that some douchebag lawyer with $$$ in his eyes is gonna sue, sue, sue. Bad idea for a dumb reason. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/33 "2008-08-18T19:46:59Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] What would you charge Home Depot with? Allowing people to congregate on its own private property? Your assertion that HD is effectively paying these people “in kind” is ludicrous. To my knowledge, Home Depot is not responsible for checking the immigration status of every individual who steps onto their property. If we follow your argument through, then Home Depot (and every other retailer, for that matter) should begin to require a US passport or a green card or a valid visitor’s visa as a condition of entry to the parking lot. As for the INS going after Home Depot “the same way they go after businesses that hire illegals,” the fact is that the INS (now DHS) has traditionally done jack shit about businesses who hire illegals. Their standard practice is to drop in, sweep up all the illegals and ship them home, then give the business a mild slap on the wrist and move on. The business, of course, waits for the INS to leave, then turns around and hires another bunch of illegals. If the government were as zealous about prosecuting businesses that hire illegals as it is about catching illegals, i’d have more sympathy for American immigration policies. As it is, however, they talk a tough game, while ensuring that the only people punished are the illegals themselves. They’ve gotten a _little_ bit better over the past few years, prosecuting some business owners, but the enforcement of American immigration policies has generally been targetted almost exclusively at the supply side (fences; border patrols; roundups), and not at the demand side (the Americans who actually hire the illegals). This is rank hypocrisy, in my opinion, and is also a method of enforcement that ensures the problem will not go away. [/QUOTE] I’d charge them with aiding and abetting the enemy. 😉 Seriously, IANAL, but if people are congregating on their property outside the store AND they encourage that behavior by building facilities for shade, rain, etc AND it can be shown that those people are illegals, I’d tell my team of lawyers to find something to charge them with. I’d make it more of a pain for them to have the illegals there than to chase them off. When the snipers killed those people in DC I was hoping that one of the relatives of the victims was going to sue the people in Washington (or was it Oregon) that broke from protocol and let him ago to attend a later court date instead of deporting him. And I am 100% with you on going after employers. I think this is the single most effective thing that can be done to combat illegal immigration. I am for many, many more prosecutions, much higher fines, and much more jail time for more of the owners/managers. But this has to be done to enough businesses so other’s don’t say "fuck it, what are the odds they’ll come knocking on my door. I say we offer rewards for tips. And that the reward money be paid for by the offender. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/34 "2008-08-18T20:42:19Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] When the snipers killed those people in DC I was hoping that one of the relatives of the victims was going to sue the people in Washington (or was it Oregon) that broke from protocol and let him ago to attend a later court date instead of deporting him. [/QUOTE] Malvo was arrested in Washington (or Oregon)? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/35 "2008-08-18T20:56:34Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Malvo was arrested in Washington (or Oregon)? [/QUOTE] [Yep. Here:](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-malkin102502.asp) > [@](#): > > Here are the facts the INS doesn’t want you to know: Lee Malvo is an illegal alien from Jamaica who jumped ship in Miami in June 2001. He was apprehended by the Border Patrol in Bellingham, Wash., in December 2001, but was then let go by the INS district in Seattle in clear violation of federal law and contrary to what the arresting Border Patrol officers intended, according to my law-enforcement sources. > > According to INS records I obtained, Malvo was arrested by Border Patrol agents in Bellingham, Wash., on Dec. 19, 2001. Local police called the Border Patrol during an incident involving “some sort of custody dispute” between Malvo’s mother, Uma Sceon James, and stepfather, John Mohammed (the ex-Army soldier with black radical Muslim ties now at the center of the sniper investigation). James admitted that six months earlier, “she and her son were passengers on a cargo ship that was filled with ‘illegal asians (sic).’ They were all off loaded in the Miami, FL area where she immediately located work at the Red Lobster in Ft. Myers, FL.” > > From there, Malvo and James traveled to Tacoma, Wash., and ended up in Bellingham. At the time of their arrest, INS records indicate, neither Malvo nor his mother had any documents proving their identities or allowing them “to be or remain in the United States legally.” The Border Patrol agents concluded that because she had “no roots or close family ties in the United States, James was likely to abscond.” The arresting officer noted that the mother-and-son illegal aliens, Malvo and James, would be “detained at the Seattle Detention facility in Seattle, Washington pending deportation charges.” > > That’s not what happened. About a month after their arrest, Malvo and his mother were set free by the Seattle district INS — contrary to what the arresting Border Patrol officers had determined should be done. And in clear violation of federal law regarding the removal of illegal alien stowaways. According to the Detention and Deportation Officers’ Field Manual: > > \*Occasionally, you may encounter an alien who claims to be a stowaway, but cannot or will not provide information concerning the name of the vessel of arrival. Prior to April 1, 1997, such aliens could be handled in the same way as any other EWI (entered without inspection) case and placed into removal proceedings. The (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act), however, directs that stowaways, regardless of when encountered, are to be removed without a hearing . . . citing section 235(a)(2) of the Act as the authority for the action. > \* > The law is explicit: Illegal alien stowaways are to be detained and deported without hearings. James admitted that she and her son were illegal alien stowaways. Yet, in January 2002, James was released on a $1,500 bond; Malvo was set loose without any bond on his own recognizance. Here is my theory: Somebody at the Seattle INS office leaned on the arresting Border Patrol officers to disregard Malvo and his mother’s “stowaway” status — allowing them to run free and allowing the INS to avoid the costs associated with detention and deportation. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/36 "2008-08-18T21:03:12Z")
[QUOTE=Death of Rats] … so… **Danceswithcats** and **Magellan01** are OK with this as long as the day laborers are legal, but if the are illegals it’s bad…right? or am I to assume they think all day laborers are illegals? [/QUOTE] Reread my OP, and post #23. I do not presume to speak for **Magellan01**. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/37 "2008-08-18T21:19:10Z")
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308] Then why doesn’t the city build the shelters if they’re so worried about these knuckleheads? Putting it up the kiester of the buisness to put up what are essentially squatters huts puts HD or any other corporation at an unfortunate and unnecessary liability. If one of these jerkasses hurts themselves on, at, or near the shelter, you can bet your bottom peso that some douchebag lawyer with $$$ in his eyes is gonna sue, sue, sue. Bad idea for a dumb reason. [/QUOTE] If the city built the shelters (assuming that they can legally do that on private property) that would mean not only is the city responsible for their upkeep and maintenance, but they would also have the liability you refer to. Why should the city open itself up for the headaches involved in this when they can just pass a law forcing a business to do so? I’ve heard of this situation (day laborers hanging around in parking lots hoping to get hired) but have never actually seen it. I don’t know if it’s illegal in my area, or if the Lowe’s near me just doesn’t draw enough business for them to make it worthwhile. I’m not sure I’d want to hire someone hanging around a parking lot anyway; how do I know they can do what I’m hiring them for, how do I know they won’t steal from me, and what if they’re injured while they’re working for me? I’d rather spend the extra money hiring a professional. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/38 "2008-08-18T21:19:11Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] If i were a contractor, carpenter, etc. [/QUOTE] What if you worked your hands in wood? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/39 "2008-08-18T21:19:29Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] [Yep. Here:](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-malkin102502.asp) [/QUOTE] Well, I’ll agree that he should have been deported. I don’t think I’ll agree that since they should have fallen under the stowaway rule. They were on a ship that was smuggling aliens into the country. Apparently only one person thought they did fall under that rule, and he was overruled. [Here:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14146-2002Oct24¬Found=true) > [@](#): > > An INS official in Washington said that the Border Patrol in Seattle had initially listed the pair as stowaways but that the charge was corrected by the INS to arriving illegally in the country. “It was not the correct charge,” said the official. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187/40 "2008-08-18T21:34:06Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] I don’t see why Home Depot should be held responsible because somebody on its property broke a law a hundred miles away sometimes last year. These people don’t work for Home Depot so how are they Home Depot’s responsibility? In my opinion, the solution to illegal immigration is to legalize it. I don’t see why there should be a law against people coming to this country to work. That’s how my family got here. [/QUOTE] Agreed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-legislation-proves-once-again-that-theyre-flat-out-nuts/460187.md?page=3)