There has been a great outcry in the press and on the internet about the terrible new anti-illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. The sad reality is that very few people on both sides of the issue have actually read the new law, but their ignorance of the law does not stop them from making statements about it.
This post is part 1 of 5 posts that contain the entire text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, (aka SB 1070) as as revised by House Bill 2162 (aka HB 2162) on April 30, 2010. The new illegal immigration law / anti-immigrant law becomes law on July 29, 2010. Deletions to text made by HB 2162 are show in red text that is lined out and new language is this color and underlined.
The other four posts found are here:
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 2,” which contains the text of new ARS Section 13-1509 (as revised by House Bill 2162).
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 3,” which contains the text of new ARS Sections 13-2319.E, 13-2928 (as revised by House Bill 2162) and 13-2929 (as revised by House Bill 2162).
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 4” which contains the text of new ARS Sections 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214, 28-3511 and 41-1274.
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 5,” which contains the text of revised ARS Sections 1-501 & 1-502 made by House Bill 2162 and new Sections 7, 8 & 9 of House Bill 2162.
The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws. The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?
One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer. For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Text of New Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-1051 (effective 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session).
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
E. In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
FE. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
GF. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.
HG. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws including 8 United States Code sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
IH. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724 [KEYTLaw Comment: This section is part of the new law and reads as follows: 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund. The gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund is established consisting of monies deposited pursuant to section 11‑1051 and monies appropriated by the legislature. The department shall administer the fund. Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation and shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.].
JI. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.
KJ. Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency.
LK. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
While you unfortunately are correct about our polity’s inexcusable failure to review primary sources before opining on government (in)action, the fact of the matter is that the law is virtually a hornbook example of how to write a constitutionally defective statute. Additionally, there is case law supporting the right NOT to have ID. Any civil liberties group wanting to make a mockery of AZ need NLT food the state with “suspicious” looking legal Hispanics not carry ID and then file suit over the ensuing arrests. The state would face millions in judgments which surely will further tank the state’s budget.
Hey Marc (Apr 25, 2010 at 10:48 am),
You said, “…there is case law supporting the right NOT to have ID.”
There are two flaws in your logic.
First, who would not want carry an ID? (Answer: someone who cannot otherwise obtain one). I had to present my ID at my bank yesterday when I cashed my paycheck. Although they know me on a first name basis, they still have to ask for it. (Hello?) The day before, I had to present my ID when I picked up my loaded trailer to haul to Houston.
Second: So tell me, Marc, which states allow you to drive a motor vehicle on the highways without an ID? Let me answer that for you: NONE! Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege, granted by the individual states, and when a judge suspends somebody’s license, they always say, “…and your driving privilege will be suspended for a period of…” Keywords: “DRIVING PRIVILEGE”, and NOT “right to drive”…
So, tell me Marc, when somebody who is stopped in Arizona for speeding or has a burned-out taillight (verbatim quote of Section 1 B: “…any LAWFUL stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official…”), are you saying that they should refuse to hand over their license when the cop asks for it, citing some bizarre legal arguments? You’re delusional, dude…
Does your interpretation mean that I can actually drive my Big Rig without my CDL in my wallet? Does your interpretation mean that I do not have to present it when I get pulled in for an inspection at the state’s weigh stations? Yeah, right…
You must be yet another in a long line of people who have not actually read this bill. The police CANNOT pull somebody over solely to check immigration status. They driver must first break another law before they can be pulled over.
Come on back to Earth…
I think I feel sorry for this Bob guy. He must have aten stupidy with a spoon on a daily basis during his time to ‘mature’
I am glad that 75% of Americans support Arizona and that it will spread to every state. PS. I am an immigrant distinct differenc though LEGALLY!!
@ Thomas,
aten? Is that a new word? (past tense of “ate”?) Probably just a typo…
“I am glad that 75% of Americans support Arizona and that it will spread to every state.”
I am glad, too, and I hope it will spread to every state. Ultimately, I am hoping the government will get off their behinds and enforce our border laws. I’m confused as to your point…
I don’t need your sympathy. What I do need is for these illegal invaders (yes, 20 MILLION people swamping our borders is considered an invasion…) to go back home and immigrate the right way and quit ignoring our laws. If you get busted at the southern border coming into Mexico, guess what? You do 2 years hard time in the one of the most corrupt prison systems in the world. Here, they are put on a bus (unless they’ve committed some sort of major crime) and the are sent home. Do you think we should adopt Mexico’s immigration laws, perhaps?
What’s your solution to the problem? I’m anxious to hear it, and don’t bother with that amnesty thing because that is simply rewarding illegal behavior.
If these folks want to work, then great- they can apply for a green card. That’s what our law requires and that’s what they need to do.
My wife and her family did it the right way over 40 years ago. These folks can, too. I am not anti-immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigration.
Big difference. Save your sympathy for someone who needs it.
Bob:
This is not about why someone would choose to exercise their constitutional right not to carry I.D., but whether that right exists, and it clearly does. Perhaps you must present your I.D. to use discretionary services like a bank, a bar, a car, a truck, etc. All of your examples are of situations where the government or a private institution is allowing you the privilege (your word, and I agree) to use their services. However, this law punishes people simply engaged in walking down the street, which is a constitutional right (NOT a privilege like your examples) and looking suspicious who happen not to have I.D. Now, if you are walking down the street and happen to have the misfortune of being stopped by the police for whatever reason (perhaps a valid one, perhaps not) and then have this added burden of needing to have I.D. to avoid possibly spending unwarranted time in a jail cell is blatantly unconstitutional.
Marc,
You said, “there is case law supporting the right NOT to have ID.”
Exactly how many states have validated case law which will allow a person to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway without being in possession of a valid driver’s license? (Answer-zero) You’re delusional…
I would like to see the end results of telling the cop who pulls somebody over and the person subsequently tells him, “I do not need to show you my ID”.
I’ve had to show my ID 5 times this week alone. (1) Cashed my paycheck at the bank and had to show it, even though they know me on a first-name basis. (2) presented it to pick up my pre-loaded trailer at the shipper before I could take it to Houston, (3) had to show it to simply RENT A DVD, (4) had to show it ti cash a Comchek at the truckstop yesterday, (5) had to show it at a state weigh station prior to having my truck inspected by the State weighmaster.
Seems to me the only person(s) who do not have a valid ID are the ones who cannot legally obtain one. Hmmm…
Also, I am confused when you said, ‘ “suspicious” looking legal Hispanics not carry ID and then file suit over the ensuing arrests’
If this were actually happening, there would be liberal news media reporters drooling all over a case such as that. It would be the lead story on CNN! Al Sharpton an his bunch would fly out to talk to the cameras, Jesse Jackson would form a protest march, ACLU would be outraged, and the whole rest of the bunch… Funny, but I haven’t seen any of these cases in the news recently. Maybe the Communist News Network decided not to run stories about these poor, “picked-on” people who broke the law when they crossed the border illegally. Or, could it be (*gasp*) that it’s not actually happening like the drive-by media leads everyone to believe? Surely not… They are illegally invading our country in droves.
The law clearly states in Section 1, Part B:, “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official…”
A lawful stop would mean speeding, drunk driving, burned-out tail lamps, expired registration, etc. Section 1, Part B specifically does NOT allow pulling somebody over for being a “suspicious-looking legal Hispanic”.
By contrast, Federal law DOES ALLOW Border Patrol agents to inquire a person’s legal residency without probable cause. I run into this situation about once or twice a week. It’s called a “Border Patrol checkpoint”. This Federal law is much stronger than the Arizona law. Maybe you should sue the Border patrol and leave Arizona alone.
Bob -
If anyone is delusional here, it is you.
You are mixing up a driver’s license with an ID. Not everybody has or needs a drivers license.
You are assuming that all “LAWFUL stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official…” result from a driving infraction.
Yes, if a stop does result from a driving infraction, then sure, you need to present a driver’s license. That the driver’s license happens to double as an ID is immaterial and coincidental to the reason you hand it over. It is not to prove who you are, but that you in fact have a valid license, because as you said correctly, driving is a privilege granted by the State, not a right.
- You are mixing up the fundamental principle that in our country, unlike most others, the government only has powers granted to it by the people. We are not subjects of the government, we are free citizens who govern ourselves. Do you understand the difference?
- Before you say “Well, then, AZ citizens freely chose via the government to impose this on people”, consider that not everyone in AZ is a citizen of AZ, even if they are citizens of the US. AZ has no right to impose ID requirements on citizens of other states who might be passing through, that would need to happen at the Federal level. It is tantamount to requiring an internal passport or visa to travel to Arizona. It might get checked only if you get arrested or stopped or even contacted lawfully by a police officer (which as noted above does not require a vehicle or driving), but it is still a requirement imposed on lawful citizens of the US that does not presently exist, nor has it ever.
- I have noted above in this thread, and no one has refuted me, that the law, which I have read, in Section B, paragraph 2, allows the police to hold anyone arrested, citizen or not, until they produce citizenship papers. This is also revolutionary, as it takes the decision for bail out of the hands of the courts and places it with local police instead. In addition, there is no limit on how long someone can be held by local officials in this manner, which raises serious habeus corpus issues.
You ask “Who doesn’t carry ID”
Well, children for one. Anyone who has lost their wallet. Anyone who is not carrying their wallet. Anyone who doesn’t feel like carrying their wallet. Anyone sleeping without their wallet on them.
Police can and do routinely “LAWFUL[ly] stop, detention or arrest” in these situations, and plenty more readers can think of for themselves.
All in all, there are many serious Constitutional issues. While I understand the right of the people of AZ to govern themselves, they still must do it in the framework of the Constitution and the rights we are all afforded.
AZ can no more ask US citizens to provide citizenship ID to police in order to get out of jail (or stay out of jail) than they (AZ government) can declare ware on Mexico. It simply isn’t within their prerogative to do so.
“AZ has no right to impose ID requirements on citizens of other states who might be passing through”
Well let’s see. Passing through…
By car? They should have a driver’s license in order to drive. Passengers will not be required to present an ID without probable cause to suspect a crime (open container, etc.)
By train? Sorry, but you need to present your ID when you pickup your boarding ticket.
By plane?. Sorry, but TSA requires a photo ID to board a plane.
Walking (across Arizona…?) Unless they are breaking the law (say, like walking on the shoulder of a rural freeway), they will not be asked for an ID. If they ARE walking down the freeway, then the police are within the law to ask for an ID because the person has broken the law.
…”it is still a requirement imposed on lawful citizens of the US that does not presently exist, nor has it ever”
Pretty-much every state in the country has some form of ID requirements in order to travel. Motels ask for an ID before they rent a room to you. Blockbuster asks for an ID to rent a dog-gone DVD. Banks ask for an ID to cash a check. I could go on and on. Unless somebody lives in a cave, they will have SOME form of an ID, but not necessarily an Driver’s license. It could be a school ID, a work ID (remember employers must see proof of residency to work here as per Fed law), or a passport if they are from another country.
“…allows the police to hold anyone arrested, citizen or not, until they produce citizenship papers.”
Like I said, anybody who is arrested must undergo a verification of ID, usually by comparing fingerprints. This is to ensure that the person being held is not wanted by Interpol, the Mexican (or any other foreign) Government, or has an outstanding warrant from another Law Enforcement agency within the US. This is commonplace when ANYONE is arrested. Many times, the person arrested will give an alias. You know that, and I know that…
I don’t know why you continue to use the word “papers”, when a simple ID will suffice. Papers has a Nazi sound to it, which is not the case here. In Nazi Germany (for one) people were trying to leave the country. Here, they are trying to break our law and sneak-in by not respecting our sovereignty. (Try sneaking into Mexico and see how you are treated…) Secondly, people who did not produce “papers” could have been (and some were…) shot. We, on the other hand, do not randomly execute people who do not produce “papers.”
“Well, children for one.” Are they by themselves? Where are their parents? If they are by themselves, they can easily carry their school ID. Since proof of residency is required to enroll in school, a school ID will suffice. (Notice I didn’t say proof of citizenship- I said proof of residency.) If they are not painting graffiti on walls or breaking some other law, they will not be approached by a LEO asked for an ID. If they ARE breaking the law, then parents will be called (as they should be…) and the parents can bring the kid’s school ID or other ID down.
“Anyone who has lost their wallet.” Temporary IDs are available at any DMV office for the price of a 12-pack of beer. If they are not breaking a law, they will not be asked for an ID and should not have to worry about it. Sometimes I do not carry my ID when I go swimming and my wife is driving. If they are detained because of an infraction, a simple call to their spouse or parent will clear anything up and they will be released.
“Anyone who is not carrying their wallet.” Same as above.
“Anyone who doesn’t feel like carrying their wallet.” Same as above. Don’t break the law, no ID needed…
“Anyone sleeping without their wallet on them.” OK, if they are sleeping on a park bench, then they are breaking the law and will be asked for an ID. If they are sleeping in their home, then they will NOT be awakened and asked to present an ID to a LEO standing at their front door. *sheesh* You are grasping at straws here… Police here do not randomly raid houses in the middle of the night to wake people up and ask them for an ID. I don’t know what country you are in, but that does not happen here unless you are a drug dealer and your house is being raided. But, then again, you have broken the law and are subject to the requirement to present an ID.
By the way, I have been sleeping without my wallet on me for over 50 years and I have yet to be asked for an ID by a cop.
Bob
The short answer is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between:
- private transactions and interactions with government officials
- law enforcement and the courts
- presumed innocent or guilty when arrested
and more, sucha s athe 4th and 5th Amendments and habeus corpus.
Maybe in the future you could actually address these principles instead of whatever it is you are trying to say. Read on for more details. But in the end unless you get these fundamental principles of our liberty in your heart, you won’t understand the broader point I am making. Sorry to have to inform you of that, but it is true.
And BTW, fantastic point about excusing Nazis the right to “keep people from trying to escape their country”, wrong though it is (see below), it represents a level of creativity I rarely see these days. I am sure pro-AZ law folks will be just thrilled to have the support of the “Nazis weren’t such bad guys” crowd!
> By car? They should have a driver’s license in order to drive. Passengers will not be required to present an ID without probable cause to suspect a crime (open container, etc.)
Right – people who would not otherwise need an ID are required to have one under this law. Thanks for making my point.
> By train? Sorry, but you need to present your ID when you pickup your boarding ticket.
But that doesn’t mean AZ has the right to check it. That is a Federal Law, and a controversial one at that (Patriot Act, etc.) Also note that, as you say it, you only need to present it to get the ticket, not to show it while on board.
> By plane?. Sorry, but TSA requires a photo ID to board a plane.
Again, you are mixing up Federal and State authorities. You might as well be arguing that because you need to show a DL when stopped for speeding by LEO, that any gov’t official ought to be able to demand it at any time.
> Walking (across Arizona…?) Unless they are breaking the law (say, like walking on the shoulder of a rural freeway), they will not be asked for an ID. If they ARE walking down the freeway, then the police are within the law to ask for an ID because the person has broken the law.
I wonder if you are trying really hard to miss my point. My point is that if someone is arrested, lawfully, they can be held without limit and without recourse to to the courts under this law. Even if they are citizens, and even if they have but refuse to share a DL.
None of your points even address this so far.
> Pretty-much every state in the country has some form of ID requirements in order to travel.
Pretty much not true.
> Motels ask for an ID before they rent a room to you
Depends on the motel, and that is a transaction between private actors, not government actors. Last I checked, the government does not run the hotels or motels in AZ. I stayed at a campground in AZ last summer for about a week, they didn’t ask for ID of everyone. Nor has a hotel or motel ever asked for ID of everyone in the group, if they ask at all.
> Blockbuster asks for an ID to rent a dog-gone DVD. Banks ask for an ID to cash a check. I could go on and on.
Yes you could, and in each case, those are transactions between private actors that either can walk away from. None of them risk being tossed in jail without access to the courts because you don’t have or won’t show ID. So try to stay on point here, OK?
> Unless somebody lives in a cave, they will have SOME form of an ID, but not necessarily an Driver’s license.
Really? My nieces don’t live in a cave, they are 9 and 12, and they don’t have ID, other than passports, which they don’t carry, for good reason. Kids that age get stopped in lawful contacts by police all the time, sometimes even arrested.
If you disagree that children don’t generally carry ID, please be kind enough to point me to the office or agency in California (where I live) that is busy providing ID for children. I have lived here almost 20 years and I have never heard of it, nor have I heard that children generally have ID from birth as you seem to be asserting, in this state or any other. Including Arizona.
> It could be a school ID, a work ID (remember employers must see proof of residency to work here as per Fed law), or a passport if they are from another country.
You are dreaming. Except for a passport, those are not allowed as ID under the law. And as a citizen, I certainly do not need to carry my passport with me or even to have one at all.
> Like I said, anybody who is arrested must undergo a verification of ID, usually by comparing fingerprints.
Even if true, ID and citizenship status are not the same thing, otherwise this law would not be needed. This law concerns citizenship status, not ID. It also applies to more than just people who have been arrested, as others have explained.
> I don’t know why you continue to use the word “papers”, when a simple ID will suffice.
That is what is meant by “papers” – to show the documents that are sufficient.
> Papers has a Nazi sound to it, which is not the case here. In Nazi Germany (for one) people were trying to leave the country.
LOL now you are going to regale us with your knowledge of history? Perhaps you are not aware of it, but the Germans overran a number of countries large and small and governed them for a while, preventing people from moving about and associating freely, in part by imposing restrictions on who can be where without demonstrating to government officials (and generally low level ones) the proper “papers”. And maybe you are not aware of how many people were forced to wear their affiliations on their outer clothing or have it tattooed on their arms to save the local officials the trouble of counterfeits.
> Try sneaking into Mexico and see how you are treated…
I have been to Mexico. They don’t ask for anything, they are happy to have us. I only need my passport on trips to Mexico to satisfy US officials, I never have seen a Mexican official who cares.
> Secondly, people who did not produce “papers” could have been (and some were…) shot. We, on the other hand, do not randomly execute people who do not produce “papers.”
This law is not random, and it would imprison them indefintiely without recourse to the courts until they do produce papers, and the best argument you have is “at least we don’t shoot them while we have them”? Great, what a patriot you are!
> If they are not breaking a law,
You use this or similar phrases several times, it makes me wonder if you understand the distinction between law enforcement and the courts? Do you understand that we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and no officer can determine on his or her own if we are breaking a law, but can only be a witness in a proceeding before the court?
Maybe this is the part we need to work on for you? Because understanding it is at the heart of my claim that the law allows the police to hold you without recourse to the courts. If you don’t understand the difference, then you will miss my point for sure! Which you have!
> “Anyone who doesn’t feel like carrying their wallet.” Same as above. Don’t break the law, no ID needed…
I have personally been stopped by officers in a non-lawbreaking operation and asked for ID. Because my local cops have a reputation for brutality, and I have been outspoken about it, and this was a remote area, and I was not breaking the law, I decided that discretion was the better part of valor and I shared it. They agreed when they heard why I was there that I was not breaking the law and that was the end of it. Are you suggesting that they should not have asked me for ID?
> If they are sleeping in their home, then they will NOT be awakened and asked to present an ID to a LEO standing at their front door.
I wasn’t there, but I am pretty sure no one stopped to politely or otherwise ask for ID here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/ap_on_re_us/us_police_search_girl_killed_7
> Police here do not randomly raid houses in the middle of the night to wake people up and ask them for an ID
Oh,but they do, all the time. The police are not the courts. Get that through your head.
> I don’t know what country you are in, but that does not happen here unless you are a drug dealer and your house is being raided.
I am in the US, and what happened in the Detroit article above happened to an ex-gf of mine in Baltimore too. She was sleeping with her newborn when a similar raid occurred in her new apartment. The warrant was for whoever used to live there (she was there several months at that point). Fortunately no one was hurt in that case, but let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen all the time.
> By the way, I have been sleeping without my wallet on me for over 50 years and I have yet to be asked for an ID by a cop.
Right. But the point is, if you are arrested lawfully while you sleep, and it happens, and you are separated from your ID, you won’t have it with you when you want it, and then you are at the mercy of LEO instead of the courts.
So, in essence, your beef isn’t with Arizona? You actually directing your outrage towards the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol! I see now… That’s who determines the legal residency status, not the Arizona LEOs. The AZ law actually prohibits them from doing so, and it’st right here in Section 3, Part B:
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION
37 STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
38 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
39 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
40 2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED
41 STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
42 1373(c).
I guess, since it is literally in black-and-white, that it means only ICE and sworn Fed officials can determine immigration status. How did you somehow convert that phrase to delegate local AZ cops the job of determining status? This is in English, of which I am very fluent, and I just don’t see it written anywhere, did you? (Maybe it is invisible ink or something.)
AZ cops are not authorized by the Feds to check status, and they won’t. If they did, ACLU lawsuits will abound, and I’m sure these local LEOs do not want Liberal media nutjob newspapers drooling over a civil case that would be leading the evening news. I simply don’t see the connection between AZ LEO infractions/citations/arrests and checking someone’s immigration status. Open my eyes for me, please…
I would also like to direct your attention to Section 4, Part A of AZ’s new law:
A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of
12 willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the
13 person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).
Wait a minute… Alien registration document? What the heck is that. Oh, wait! I know! It’s nicknamed “a green card”… Notice that the AZ law duplicates a 25 year-old Federal law? So, as I see it, your beef is with the Fed’s existing law and NOT Arizona’s? Sorry to be so repetitive…
FYI–FEDERAL Code Section 1304(e). refers to the section that tells legal aliens who have a green card to carry it on their person. Hmmm… I guess if they don’t have it on their person, then they are actually breaking a 24 year-old FEDERAL law (*ahem, excuse me…*) Where was your outrage in 1986 when this took effect?
Here’s 1304(e) for you to read. It’s a Federal law, not an AZ law.
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html
Read on…
14 B. In the enforcement of this section, an alien’s immigration status
15 may be determined by:
16 1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal
17 government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
18 2. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United
19 States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section
20 1373(c).
Huh..? Wait a minute… Only ICE or sworn Fed officials can determine status? Hmm… No way! The way you were carrying on, I thought the Arizona cops were required to determine status.
“…people who would not otherwise need an ID are required to have one under this law”
Really? What section says that? I’ve read this law about 10 times now and I can’t find that phrase. If they are breaking the law, an officer is within his legal right to conduct a preliminary onsite investigation and to also ask who they are and to prove it during the course of the investigation. A citizen has a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself and he could just shut his mouth, but most people waive that right if they have nothing to hide. If they don’t present an ID, that is rather unusual and it would raise a reasonable suspicion in ANY cop’s mind. Reasonable suspicion is much different than beyond a reasonable doubt (the legal standard for a conviction), which can only be determined in a court of law.
“fantastic point about excusing Nazis”
“Nazis weren’t such bad guys”
Don’t even go there. I did NOT excuse the Nazis, nor did I say that they “weren’t such bad guys”. I detest what they did! My mother, my uncle, and I never knew my grandfather because he was killed in a small French village on D-Day by a freaking Nazi when they were both very young kids. Don’t put words into my mouth that I never said! That statement is yours, not mine.
My point was that the Nazis were a military state with martial/military law and summary courts. There were no elected representatives/judges once they started invading sovereign nations. My point was also that the Nazi’s military law required “papers” to be shown to a soldier, not a law enforcement officer who must appear in court. There IS A DIFFERENCE between martial law and civil law, which Nazi’s did not have.
By train
“But that doesn’t mean AZ has the right to check it.”
That is correct-and they won’t check it. If they did, the ACLU would be all over it. If the passenger isn’t breaking the law, they won’t need to show it to anyone. If they step off the train and commit a crime, then they will need an ID once they are at the local jail awaiting arraignment. There will not be “Arizona train-raiders” who will be jumping onto trains to ask everyone for their ID. (Side note: Fed Border Patrol, however, routinely boards buses to check for this very thing–but they are NOT Arizona LEOs) *sheesh*. You are actually starting to sound paranoid.
“My point is that if someone is arrested, lawfully, they can be held without limit and without recourse to to the courts under this law. Even if they are citizens, and even if they have but refuse to share a DL.”
I just can’t locate that code you that are quoting that specifically says “WITHOUT LIMIT” and “WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE COURTS”. I just can’t find it… When a person is arrested inside the US, they are entitled to rights under the Constitution. This AZ law does not exclude those rights anywhere. I’ve searched and searched, but I cannot find a code anywhere in the AZ law that does not allow Constitutional rights to someone who as been arrested and turned over to ICE or Border patrol for an immigration status check. Please direct me to that code. Let me save you some time. If that code WAS in the law, it would be considered unconstitutional, and that portion of the law would be thrown out, although there is a severability in it, which as you know, means that the rest of the code would still be in effect.
The closest thing I found refers to the Feds (NOT Arizona LEO) holding someone only until their status can determined. That has been an existing Federal Law for a long time. (So, once again, I take it that your outrage is directed at the Federal level and not the state of AZ…) “Until status can be determined” does not mean “without limit”, unless you can provide me with the code that states such. It usually takes a day or two if the person is being cooperative. That’s their choice. They can prove their status and be set free, or they choose to not cooperate by excersizing their 5th Amendment rights, and thus, will sit for a few extra days. Then again, that’s the same procedure for ANY accused criminal…
It’s in Section B, Part B. It says:
Any person who is arrested shall
6 have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is
7 released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal
8 government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
Where did it say “without limit”? I didn’t see it and it’s in English, which we both, obviously, comprehend…
Yes, I liked your history lesson. I am quite aware of what happened in Europe (more than you are probably know). I have visited the location where the farmhouse once stood where my grandfather was murdered by a Nazi soldier, and I have seen his headstone on French soil. I am not ignorant, so please do not portray me as such by insulting my intelligence. I have not personally attacked you, so please be civil and do not personally attack me. I deal with facts, not personal attacks. Don’t infer that I support Nazism in any way, shape,or form.
Yes, we do not randomly shoot people who do not have proof of residency. By saying, “Great, what a patriot you are!”, I take that as a compliment because I am reinforcing the fact that we are a country of laws and we have justice for all in a court of law, not on the side of a road with a pistol to the head. That was my point, which you obviously didn’t see. If someone is arrested and subsequently detained until their status can be determined by the Feds, they will be given a fair trial, which is a right guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution, no matter what their immigration status is. If they are proven guilty of their crime and do not appeal (or exhaust their appeals), they will serve their sentence they earned when they broke our law(s), and then they will be deported. Do you somehow find that unconstitutional?
If so, then I think you need to re-direct your outrage to the Feds, NOT Arizona, because all AZ did was copy the existing Federal law into a state law, except AZ is forbidden to check immigration status–that is only allowed by sworn Fed officers, ICE, and Border Patrol. It’s in black-and-white and written in proper English.
I do not want to write another book (I’ve written 6 books already), so I will just check back to see if you want to reply. Consider this my last word, and I hope you call the current Homeland Security Administration and complain about their current immigration laws, because therein the real problem lies, and therein is where your anger should be directed.
Bob
P.S. I also live in California (San Fernando Valley), and if you are worried about your kids not having a school ID, then you can get one from the DMV for about 10 bucks, and they are good for 6 years. You will need proof of their legal residency to get one. Thus, it serves as valid “papers” in AZ. By the time it expires, they will be in high school and will have a school-issued ID. Since California requires proof of residency to enroll in school, their school ID will be accepted as valid “papers” in AZ, and they will no longer need a California ID. They will be safe and you won’t have to worry anymore.
Here’s the link:
http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#idcard
Bob
> So, in essence, your beef isn’t with Arizona?
No, my beef is entirely with Arizona. Otherwise, I would be discussiong other issues in other places on the internet. this discussion is about Arizona. I am focused in particular on new restrictions on US citizens that happen to get arrested in Arizona, as implemented in this law. If by now you don’t understand that, then what DO you understand?
> How did you somehow convert that phrase to delegate local AZ cops the job of determining status?
Even if what you say about ICE is true, local cops will still be the intermediaries to provide information to ICE and act on their results. They will site between the prisoner and the decision maker, and therefore have the power to delay.
The reason the task is not delegated via the law directly to federal agents is because AZ has no authority to do so. They can only control their own officers, and those are the officers managing the prisoner.
If you are alleging that AZ can control ICE or other Federal officers, than you are making the case that others are making, that AZ is attempting to control Federal jurisdiction via this law. That is not my focus, but certainly others have made this point. I didn’t expect you to be one of them though
> If they did, ACLU lawsuits will abound, and I’m sure these local LEOs do not want Liberal media nutjob newspapers drooling over a civil case that would be leading the evening news
Glad to see you are openminded and not prejudiced!
> So, as I see it, your beef is with the Fed’s existing law and NOT Arizona’s? Sorry to be so repetitive..
If that is how you see it, then you are not really r”reading for comprehension”. I have repeatedly stand my focus is on the effects of US citizens who happen to get arrested in Arizona. Can I be any clearer about that? I have not written about alien, legal or otherwise, at all.
> Really? What section says that?
Section B, sentence 2 imposes new requirements to prove citizenship on US citizens who are arrested in AZ. Note, before you bow a gasket, that even if existing law might require ID of some sort, that is not for the purpose of proving citizenship status, so this is a NEW requirement.
> I’ve read this law about 10 times now and I can’t find that phrase
Not surprising, even though I have pointed it out to you in Section B multiple times. Why do I bother?
> If they don’t present an ID, that is rather unusual and it would raise a reasonable suspicion in ANY cop’s mind.
Not true, as others have pointed out the Supreme Court rulings on that – you are not required to provide and ID simply because a cop asks for one, and therefore it is not suspicious to refuse. Any cop who acts otherwise is going to have a short career.
> I detest what they did! My mother, my uncle, and I never knew my grandfather because he was killed in a small French village on D-Day by a freaking Nazi when they were both very young kids. Don’t put words into my mouth that I never said! That statement is yours, not mine.
Yet you misstated or misunderstand what they did. Sorry for your family’s loss, but you are wrong about how they operated. They only tried to stop people from leaving Germany – pshaw! Shame on you!
> My point was also that the Nazi’s military law required “papers” to be shown to a soldier, not a law enforcement officer who must appear in court. There IS A DIFFERENCE between martial law and civil law, which Nazi’s did not have.
So in the US if terhe is not martial law, you are OK having to show “papers” to civil law enforcement instead of Nazi soldiers? LEO that makes decisions on your right to pass (out of a jail e.g.) that has previously always been the jurisdiction of the courts but now belongs to local law enforcement to implement as they see fit? You are OK with that? And you don’t see the parallel to Nazi soldiers asking for papers at all? Hmmm….
> If the passenger isn’t breaking the law, they won’t need to show it to anyone.
Wrong – people get arrested all the time without breaking the law – that is why we have courts, we are innocent until proven guilty. If the cops get to decide, we wouldn’t need courts.
And anyone arrested, whether they broke the law or not (which won;t be decided until much later) needs to show papers to cops to leave prison, when prior to this law a court would release them on bail or self-recog. But no more, now it is up to the local officer’s discretion.
> then they will need an ID once they are at the local jail awaiting arraignment
And they will need it AFTER arraignment too. The law as written usurps the Court’s power to grant bail, because even if the Court grant’s bail, the local officers still must see the papers before the prisoner can leave. It is as plain as day, Section B, sentence 2.
> You are actually starting to sound paranoid.
To you maybe because you are misunderstanding everything I write. I am concerned with routine arrests that happen every day and always have, of US citizens in Arizona. Nothing more, nothing less. Just changes in the routine interactions with LEO and risks we have of getting arrested every day as we go about our business.
> I just can’t locate that code you that are quoting that specifically says “WITHOUT LIMIT” and “WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE COURTS”. I just can’t find it..
For the umpteenth time, Sectin B, sentence 2. I explained jsut above how that usurps the Courts powers. I thought it would be obvious, but I guess not.
> Where did it say “without limit”? I didn’t see it and it’s in English, which we both, obviously, comprehend…
Look at tit he other way – where is the limit specified? What happens if the person refuses to provide their status (which they never had to do before)? Even if the Court grant’s bail, they can not be released. Ever.
> I am not ignorant,
Are you sure? because you are certainly close-minded, not a good reader for comprehension, and quite possibly bigoted against those not like you or living the same life as you.
> I deal with facts, not personal attacks. Don’t infer that I support Nazism in any way, shape,or form.
Facts as you see them or as convenient to you perhaps. You said that Nazis only asked for papers for people trying to leave the country. Maybe it was a mistake, but you said it and have not corrected it.
And you certainly have attacked “liberals”, ACLU, and others. We know your game. You can’t stand your freedom and would rather restrict it than share it and grow it for all.
> I take that as a compliment because I am reinforcing the fact that we are a country of laws and we have justice for all in a court of law
Unless you are a US citizen who happens to get arrested in AZ should this law go into affect, then the local police, possibly in conjunction with ICE or other Federal LEO, not the courts will decide when you leave or if you leave. I wasn’t taught that was how it worked in school, were you?
> That was my point, which you obviously didn’t see.
No, I understand that is your point completely. My point is that it is wrong, and I offered plenty of evidence. You offer no evidence, only wishes and dreams and platitudes to support your point. I agree that prior to this law, your point was generally valid, but after it, it will be strongly limited in AZ (and surely other states will rush to follow).
> f someone is arrested and subsequently detained until their status can be determined by the Feds, they will be given a fair trial, which is a right guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution, no matter what their immigration status is
Except for those pesky habeus corpus issues I brought up, and which you refuse to address (because you can’t) plus the police determining instead of the court, what the bail requirements are.
> they will serve their sentence they earned when they broke our law(s), and then they will be deported. Do you somehow find that unconstitutional?
Oh quite – for one thing I am only talking about US citizens. Why on earth would they be deported? Why would you find that acceptable in the least?
> (I’ve written 6 books already)
Really? I’d like to read those books! Care to share the titles?
> They will be safe and you won’t have to worry anymore.
So you acknowledge that unless people trek to DMV every six years for each kid starting at birth (which I am sure is soooo common – have you ever seen such an ID or met a kid that has one, let alone on him all the time?) then there “is no need to worry anymore”, which means without the ID, there is cause to worry.
Thanks for proving my point again – people don’t have these IDs routinely for kids, kids don’t have them, kids get arrested, kids and parents alike ought to worry.
Barry, Barry, Barry,…
I still think your beef is with the Feds, since they have always been the only ones who have had authority to detain illegal trespassers for as long as I can remember. It’s been in the Federal Code for decades, and still is Federal Code. AZ cannot legally detain the illegal invaders unless they have broken a state law, to which they will be placed in the holding cell in the jail pending an arraignment, which is the same treatment afforded any other accused criminal. At the arraignment, if the judge determines they might pose a flight risk, bail will be denied, as with any other common criminal.
“So you acknowledge that unless people trek to DMV every six years for each kid starting at birth (which I am sure is soooo common – have you ever seen such an ID or met a kid that has one, let alone on him all the time?) then there “is no need to worry anymore”, which means without the ID, there is cause to worry.
Thanks for proving my point again – people don’t have these IDs routinely for kids, kids don’t have them, kids get arrested, kids and parents alike ought to worry.”
==============
I don’t know what point I proved for you, but you are certainly welcome. Actually, there is no need for the parents to worry, by the way…
No, I don’t acknowledge obtaining a Calif ID as being the only way. Every single kid on my block has an ID. I am sure every single kid on your block has one, too. I’ve met several hundred of kids over the years who all have valid ID’s — good in all 50 states!
Actually, if you have kids, you already have an ID for them. Each one of my 3 kids (2 of which are still alive) had one a few weeks after each one was born. It’s called a “Social Security Card”, (which happens to be on the list of approved ID’s) and you need one for your kids if you have ever filed personal Income Taxes because you have to list each of your kid’s SSN on your 1040 form. I merely offered the Calif ID card as another method of providing your kids an ID, since you seem to be so worried about them being arrested.
If they ARE arrested, then they will only be detained by ICE (not AZ) if there is reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally. That’s what the law says. I am not going to cite the code because my eyes are becoming crossed from reading it so much lately. Trust me- it’s in there. If there is no reasonable suspicion, then no further investigation is performed, which is the exact same standard as a LEO performs during a routine roadside stop and the subsequent roadside preliminary investigation.
If your kid is arrested and they can convince ICE that they are legal residents, then there should be no worry on your part, other than you might be worried about why they got arrested in the first place. Perhaps, if they spoke to the cops in perfect English, there would not be a reasonable doubt to their residency, since 99% of illegal immigrants who come from a southerly direction did not learn perfect English from birth like I presume your kids did.
If somebody’s kid actually does get arrested, then the parents actually SHOULD be put through the little bit of inconvenience (in my opinion…) of having to shag their Kid’s ID down to the ICE detention center because they weren’t really being very good parents if their kids got arrested in the first place, now, were they?
Like I said, I don’t know what point I proved to you, but you’re welcome.
====================
” then the local police, possibly in conjunction with ICE or other Federal LEO, not the courts will decide when you leave or if you leave.”
Not in conjunction with ICE. That’s not what the law says. Local police are NOT involved in determining if someone gets released. ICE (Formerly Border Patrol) determines that, just as they have been doing foe the last, say 30 years or so. I still think your beef is with the Feds Were you outraged 2 decades ago when 8 USC section 1304 was made into law? Let me refresh your memory:
8 USC 1304 (e):
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.
If they don’t have it on them, they are breaking the law… as in current “FEDERAL” law…
Outraged? This was passed in 1986… I guess that’s why you are so upset. It’s been locked up inside you for 24 years.
Yes, I will address your habeas corpus concerns. If you are detained, our Constitution clearly states (14th Amendment) that if you are born here or are naturalized, you are a citizen of the US and also of the State where you live. In addition, as a Citizen, you will be afforded all rights under our Constitution.
Also, if the accused remains in jail after their arrest, they must be brought before a judge for arraignment within 24-48 hours after arrest. The exact time limit varies though the SCOTUS now requires that if a person was arrested without a previously-issued warrant, they must be brought before a judge within 48 hours, so that a judge may determine whether there was probable cause for the arrest.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/arraignment/
Most immigration status inquiries performed by ICE (as I stress once again-NOT Arizona LEO)only take from 2-6 hours. I spend more time than that stuck in traffic every week. Occasionally, inquiries take up to 36 hours, still well-within the 48-hour limit. I think your anger should be directed at ICE, not AZ, because ICE are the ones holding them. But, then again, we all know how slow our Federal Government is (have you ever tried to deal with the VA?…)
Finally:
“Afterwards” Subtitle: How to deal with the loss of a child, (non-fiction), 162 pages
“Random Act of Silence” (fictional tech-thriller a la Tom Clancy), 291 pages
“No Way Out” (fictional crime/mystery), 340 pages
“Take My Missile” (fictional futuristic war thriller a la Tom Clancy), 220 pages
“Blastoff” (fictional sci-fi mystery), 411 pages
“Meltdown” (fictional sci-fi tech-thriller), 388 pages so far- my current work
Don’t bother running down to Barnes and Noble. They have not been published. They currently occupy space in my office, space on my hard drive, and space on some backup CD’s. I’ll make sure you are the first to know when they are, though. You’d probably like the last one.
My first one deals with the loss of my beautiful 21 year-old daughter on Christmas Eve of ’04, and what it did to me, my late wife (she died in ’07), and my two other kids. It also deals with the 7 symptoms of grief: Anger, Denial, Guilt, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance, Healing. I am sure there will be an audience for this one once I decide to publish it (if someone will publish it…) I was going to call it “Death is a Noun”, but when I researched that name, it was already published. Bummer…
Have a nice day. Thunderstorms here in Wichita today. Yech
Thank you Bob. After Ignorant people like Barry really get under my skin and if you watch the news there is a lot of them. I have spent 16 years of my life in the military both the Marine Corps and the US Army in defense of my nation and the freedom of it’s peoples. I did not join for Mexico or any other country, nor should my tax money go to the aid of people who cross our borders illegally. If AZ or any other state wants to pass this law I am all for it. I live in Texas and would love to have this same law made here as well if not a federal law.
Jeremy,
Thank you. His silence (lately) has been deafening…
I think his paranoia finally got the best of him. Either that or his kids got arrested and he couldn’t find their legal ID– their social security card that he needs to have when he files his annual income taxes.
Rock on.
Bob
To all of you,
im sorry to have to interrupt this invigorating conversation but i need to know. I know this probably none of my business and you can say so but um….how many of you actually live in Arizona? If you don’t heres a nice little news flash for you, uh what you think of this law is irrelavant. If you dont like it oh well. We dont care how you feel about our choices they arent your problem are they?
The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws.
Where does the new law say this? The law very clearly states in the first paragraph:
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
Second, the law is truthfully no different than the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 of the United States Code). It is just codified and adopted into Arizona law. As such, the new law is clear that it is meant to compliment existing federal law and can survive judicial review. ( I have read both and can cite the federal source of each of Arizona’s statues.)
Marc,
Your statement regarding carrying ID is invalid. If an alien legal or otherwise is encountered and they are not carrying ID they are in fact in violation of federal law (8 USC 1304 (e) and subject to arrest. If the alien claims to be a US Citizen and they are proven not to be, they are in violation of 18 USC 911, false claim to US Citizenship (USC), and are thus barred from EVER BECOMING A US CITIZEN. Very few illegal aliens claim to be US Citizens for fear of the permanent bar. Additionally, the new law does not empower local law enforcement officer to determine a person’s legal status. It states a person must be empowered to do so by the Federal Government.
The bottom line is this law does nothing more than adopt CURRENT federal law. A federal agent empowered to enforce Title 8 (the Immigration and Nationality Act) can stop any person who they have reasonable suspicion (1 or more articulable fact) to believe is an ALIEN (not just an illegal alien), and determine alienage. If they are determined to be an ALIEN (not just an illegal alien), they are REQUIRED by federal law ( 8 USC 1304(e)) to have in their possession documents proving their legal status (i.e. a passport with a valid visa or a lawful permanent resident card [I-551].) The statue is clear that race is not acceptable as the sole fact to base the suspicion on; however, the supreme court has held that race may be considered in conjunction with other facts (i.e. a person’s inability to speak English, lack of identification, providing false or misleading information pertaining to place of birth, etc.) when determining alienage. The law isn’t going to really have that big of an effect on legal aliens or USC and the majority of people complaining haven’t really read the statue or are completely blind on federal law. My two cents!
Paul
Paul,
You’re a fool if you believe this law doesn’t give AZ LE liberty to infringe the rights of LEGAL citizens. It says “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency”. This means that if someone DOES NOT provide this identification, the ARE presumed to be an alien. There is no “probable cause” required before LE can stop ANYONE and require they present this proof. The law only specifies “reasonable suspicion” as the standard for detention, and under the Terry Stop doctrine, LE may use force to detain you. The “reasonable suspicion” standard is easily achieved by any officer willing to lie about what they saw you do or heard you say. They need provide no actual evidence of a crime of any kind. In fact, “reasonable suspicion” attains if the officer thinks you MIGHT ABOUT TO commit a crime!
If you can’t provide the require ID (we’ll get to that in a moment), you’re now automatically presumed to be an illegal alien, and LE can escalate its actions all the way to transporting you to a Federal detention facility, all without due process OF ANY KIND. No lawyer, no arrest, no nothing.
Now, let’s talk about the ID requirement. Currently in the US LE cannot stop you out in public and simply demand that you “show your papers”. In fact, we’re entitled to just walk away from a police officer asking any question whatsoever, as long as we aren’t already being detained — and then we have the right to remain silent until we obtain counsel. This ID requirement goes far beyond simply identifying who you are by name and address — it’s PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP that is demanded.
This law then makes it a requirement that everyone carry proof of citizenship on them at all times, even when just walking. That’s a historic infringement of personal liberty. Worse, the law is far too vague about what constitutes acceptable ID, beyond an AZ state ID. It permits only government-issued ID that itself required proof of citizenship to obtain. This excludes virtually all drivers licenses from other states, as few, if any, currently require proof of citizenship to get a DL. In CA, for example, you don’t need to be a citizen to get a DL. In fact, CA won’t accept its own DL for its own laws that require proof of citizenship (see http://tinyurl.com/citproof).
I’m hard pressed to imagine what non-AZ state or federal ID I would normally carry on my person that would let me as a CA resident use to comply with this law. Short of a birth certificate, which is the generally accepted means of citizenship proof, no normally held ID — credit card, library card, military ID (non-citizens can be in the military), even a pilot’s license — requires proof of citizenship to obtain.
Although the law is clearly defective, once it’s activated and until it’s overturned, every US citizen is subject to violation of civil liberties by LE. Just ask Steven Anderson (http://tinyurl.com/sanderson1).
Packetguy is overlooking the fact that you don’t have to show ID unless they stop you in a “lawful contact” which means something other than race. Additional it prohibits the sole use of race. Packetguy’s whole argumument is based on being question by police unlawfully- expressly prohibited by this bill.
If you are engaged in suspicous activity that gets you stopped, you have to show your driver’s license. It’s not a big deal, you have to show it when you by a beer at Chipoltle.
You’re right on the money Bruce +1
Packetguy is missing the point. The law doesn’t make it a requirement to carry proof of citizenship. If you break a law and you don’t have ID then the cops will take you to jail to determine your identification. They would do this no matter what. If you don’t carry your ID and you don’t break any laws guess what? The cops will never bother you (because they have no reason to). lol
If they obviously can’t determine your identity then guess what you’re not a citizen! Or just maybe every single record of you was deleted magically prior to your arrest 1984 style. lol… I guess bums might have an issue with this… or gypsies? lol
If you’re a tourist or something then you have to have a passport “somewhere” and a record of entry into the united states with a visa.
No Paul, my point about ID is not invalid but I am talking about application of the law to citizens. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Federal statute is problematic as well as citizens have been held by ICE in secret hidden facilities without access to counsel for months. One does not fix such matters by reiterating bad policy.
As to the “non-discretion clause”, that is simply inane not to mention unenforceable.
If Arizona wants to do something about illegal aliens, it should address it’s attention to the businesses that employ them (and I am not talking about raids but about cracking down on the intentional flaunting of federal law by the very people supporting this legislation.)
Marc,
“…held by ICE in secret hidden facilities”
Really? Your proof is…?
If they are “secret facilities, then how did you find out about them? I guess they are not so secret after all (IF they even exist…)
I’ll be waiting right here for your non-existent proof… Patiently waiting…
Oh, and you said, “…Arizona… should address it’s attention to the businesses that employ them”.
Well, it is again apparent that you have not read the bill because that’s exactly what Section 6 A enforces (which, once again, duplicates Federal law). Read it… Here’s a full copy of the text:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Scroll down to Section 6 and take a gander at it. You might learn something.
This law does nothing more than copy EXISTING FEDERAL LAW into a state statute, with an additional State statute that prohibits inquiring about a subject’s legal residency status without probable cause, which differs from Federal Border patrol policy which ALLOWS inquiries about residency.
In other words, Border Patrol can just walk up to you and ask if you are a legal US citizen. Heck, they do it all the time on the interstates in Border states. If you have ever been through a Border patrol checkpoint on I-10 or I-35 (I have been through hundreds of them because I drive a Big Rig), the first question the Border Patrol will ask is “Are you an American Citizen”.
So sue Border Patrol for violating your civil rights- leave Arizona alone.
Rather than compose a brief I have reviewed the wikipedia page on stops and as it does a reasonable job of discussing the matter suggest you review same, keeping in mind the circuit in which Arizona is situated as well as the deference paid to that circuit’s position (which is still controlling under the US SCt ruling as far as producing and documentation.)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Paul – your claim that Marc’s claim is invalid, is well, invalid. This act requires an arrested person, citizen or not, legal immigrant or not, to produce papers proving the status before they are eligible for release. See Section B, sentence 2. As a citizen, I guess if I am ever arrested in Arizona (and I do spend time there), I guess I will be staying in prison until and unless the police determine my status on their own initiative without any cooperation from me. “Show me your papers and you can go home” Feh!
“This act requires an arrested person, citizen or not, legal immigrant or not, to produce papers proving the status before they are eligible for release”
Barry,
It’s far, far worse than that. It requires that your produce those papers without even being arrested. Failure to produce the papers makes you automatically presumed to be an illegal alien, providing grounds for later arrest and transport away from where you were contacted UNTIL you can provide such proof.
At first blush it seems like you must be arrested in order for the process to start:
“Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”
But because the law is so poorly written, the prior language puts the burden of proof on any citizen that LE has “reasonable suspicion” to demand ID from:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official … reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien … a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person”
Although the intention is to place a burden on LE to make such citizenship tests where they may have failed to in the past, the actual result of the language is to give LE _license_ to demand citizenship ID on mere “reasonable suspicion”. That weak legal standard has been widely documented as the single most abused doctrine in law enforcement — it requires ZERO EVIDENCE of a crime, since you can be suspected of being “about to commit a crime.” Worse, recent precedence has clarified this as being entirely in the mind of the LE officer, without regard to actual facts. All a policeman has to do is say he BELIEVED he had reasonable suspicion.
I realize that. I am focusing on the narrow case because it is easier to separate the emotion from the arguments on this specific case I would hope.
Note I did not say this is the only thing wrong with the law, only the easiest to relate to by Joe Sixpack , his wife, and his kids.
Where to begin. First Packetguy, Your first argument is a mistaken reversal. Just because the law spells out exactly what type of documentation can be used to prove citizenship does not mean that a lack of it AUTOMATICALLY makes you illegal. That is a presumption on your part not the law! The law is in black and white. Second, I am very familiar with the concept of Terry stops and if you reread my earlier post you will see I clearly state that only reasonable suspicion is necessary to question a person about their alienage. WHICH IS THE CURRENT FEDERAL LAW, AS WELL.
“If you can’t provide the require ID (we’ll get to that in a moment), you’re now automatically presumed to be an illegal alien, and LE can escalate its actions all the way to transporting you to a Federal detention facility, all without due process OF ANY KIND. No lawyer, no arrest, no nothing.”
Read the law this is an out right LIE!
Section 1051 D “Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility”
The only place it evens talks about transporting an alien to a Federal detention facility.” The key is HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION.
Where does it say you have to carry proof of citizenship on you at all times? Federal law says if you are an ALIEN you have to carry ID on you at all times and proof of legal status! This law does nothing to change that requirement. Nor does it make the non-production of documents by a US Citizen a crime.
As for your post, the LE were clearly within the law to question and search Steven Anderson’s car if like they say the dog alert to the presence of drugs or people. (a dog alert equals probable cause.) I don’t feel sorry for idiotic people who feel they are above the law and wish to start confrontation just because. I am sure Mr. Anderson will be found guilty and they world will keep on moving.
Marc I am not sure where you are getting your information about ICE detention facilities. First by law ICE dentention facilities (all federal detention facilities) are not secret or hidden and must be disclosed to the public. Second, any person taken into an ICE facility is given a free phone within 8 hours of being processed normally closer to 2 hours. They are also given a list of free local attorneys and organizations that can assist them at no cost to them or the government. All aliens unless they waive the hearing will see an Immigration judge within 10 days of being arrested (Note even if arrested for administrative charges it is considered an administrative arrest and an administrative arrest warrant issued [Form I-200].) Now Marc while I do not disagree with you that US citizens have been arrested for being illegal, if you look it up it is exception not the rule. And you will not find any evidence to support the theory that some overwhelming amount have been arrested for being illegal. Now before someone writes something stupid like one person is one to many, think about how many innocent people have been sent to jail for crimes they didn’t commit. While, it is unfortunate, it would be fool hearted to think we should just stop arresting people or enforcing the law. Also, in relation to the employers the AZ Law provides FOUR full length sections dealing only with employers. They even require businesses to use E-verify, where an employer can validate the information given to them by a person on their I-9. This even protects the business if it is found later that they inadvertently hired an illegal while following all the procedures.
Back to Packetguy, again you are lying to the world. The law does not require you, the person arrested, to produce anything about your immigration status before being released. The law says very clearly that JAILS must comply with 8 USC 1373 (C) which requires the federal government to confirm a persons legal status. This is normally done by contacting ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) via NLETS. This requires ICE to acknowledge the message within 20 mins and determine their legal status within 1 hour. Additionally, in lots of counties across the U.S., especially in AZ, ICE DRO officers are in the county jails and are able to verify a persons status in minutes.
Also reasonable suspicion is based on actual facts. The facts are interpret not by what the officer believed but what a reasonable person in that situation, given the officers articulable facts would believe. Truthfully, the bottom line about what actions the officer takes is simple. Our legal system is not perfect. Every officer is not perfect nor is ever criminal going to get caught and go to jail for every crime they commit. Mistakes are going to be made, but I am a firm believer that while there are a few bad apples in law enforcement by far the majority are upstanding citizens who want to protect their families and communities. This outlandish theory that there is going to be a pandemic of police abuse is unfounded and completely outside of reality. The truth of the matter is simple, if the police wanted to abuse everybody’s rights they could do it now if they really wanted to. Also, do a Google search on how many people in the US are killed every day by illegal aliens, it ranges from 10 to 17 people a day. And of the 1 million illegals arrested last year, half were in Az. The people of Az have spoken they are fed up and I don’t feel sorry for the illegal aliens.
Good job Paul. You have presented a clear and cogent understanding of the Arizona law. The truth of the matter is that many of those that object to the law want an open border and thereby no federal or state immigration law. I wish they would just be intelelctually honest about it. I belive the Mexican and other latino groups enrich our society and I am glad for those that are here legally. However, we are also a nation lf lawsand our government has a resposibility to enact and enforce immigration laws
Paul,
While LE may question a person detained in a Terry stop, the person is not required to answer except in some states, where a person may have to verbally provide their name and date of birth. People do not have to present any papers (unless operating a motor vehicle), and do not have to answer any questions about their alienage. Thus you’re incorrect, the AZ statues is not already in Federal law.
Regarding the limitation of transporting suspected illegals until “receiving verification”, I’m glad you brought this up. It’s another example of a giant slaughter of civil liberties by this law. First, what constitutes “verification”? The law doesn’t say. Who can verify that I’m not an illegal citizen? What agency? What database? I’m in LE Information Technology and I can assure you that there is no database or authority to contact to veryify that someone ‘is not” illegal. There aren’t even any that verify someone IS illegal! There are arrest and warrants databases, but those only include people already arrested and wanted for a prior crime. Under this law, you could be detained indefinitely.
You ask “Where does it say you have to carry proof of citizenship on you at all times?” Right here:
“A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following [list of valid IDs]”.
So if you provide proof of citizenship (not merely ID if you’re not an AZ rezident) you’re presumed NOT to be an illegal alien. If you DON’T provide proof of citizenship, LE is by this very statement entitled to presume you ARE an illegal. You said “Nor does it make the non-production of documents by a US Citizen a crime.” It doesn’t have to make it a crime. It only has to give LE “reasonable suspicion” to detain and transport you until LE manages to somehow “receive verification.” Where is the presumption of innocence? Where is the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? That sucking sound you hear is our Constitution going down a drain in Arizona.
It’s too bad that you don’t see the injustice in the Steve Anderson case. Research it more thoroughly. Whatever you think of his religion or politics, it’s obvious that the Border Patrol fabricated all evidence to justify their criminal assault on a completely innocent US citizen. The BP found no drugs and the “dog alert” was a blatant excuse to trample Anderson; evidence shows they had him marked for assault.
You may be happy with the insane beauracratic labryinth of USC 1373, but for an ordinary citizen to be subject ot this abuse (which you admit could leave an innocent person locked up for ten days) is certainly unreasonable.
You say ” [LE is] able to verify a persons status in minutes.” Wrongo. What happens is that LE FAILS to find any other wants or warrants and thus can’t legally hold the suspect any longer. The AZ law changes that, because it requires “VERIFICATION OF THEIR STATUS” before release, which without further defintion means proof of citizenship. Under no other law in the US can LE hold someone until LE accomplishes some prerequisite research. Either charge them or let them go; that’s the law. There is absolutely no database available to any civilian LE agency with citizinship information in it.
Your mocking of people who say “one innocent arrested is one too many” shows a fundamental ignorance of American jurisprudence, which is CENTERED on Blackstone’s formulation “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. In 99% of the cases where innocent people are convicted, is is because LE abused due process. The AZ law actually CODIFIES abuse of due process. It’s a death sentence to personal liberty.
I am all for blocking illegal aliens at the border, and for deporting them when they are arrested for some other crime (such as illegal employment). I am adamantly opposed to giving up one scintilla of my own liberty to further the task of filtering illegals out of society.
Re ICE, you would have to be living in a cave not to have heard about the current fiasco over ICE detention facilities. See http://www.google.com/m/search?q=secret+ICE+facilities
Paul,
Re AZ law vs 9th Cir – AZ loses and US SCt already stated Nevada law survived only because it only required the detainee to speak his name
Re potential litigation: As I said, if I were LaRasa I would flood border towns with seedy looking Hispanics without ID who hold positions as judges, lawyers, legislators as well as doctors, lawyers and other professionals and just hope that some zealous local cop arrests on the basis of no ID in possession. The ensuing class action suit will bankrupt Arizona
I understand your bona fides, and if I thought you weren’t willing to consider other view points I would not have posted. But if you don’t understand the issues above, let alone the fact the criminal case law protects LE by acting to restrain the abuse that such laws engender as LE stretches to address criminal elements that is simply unfortunate. I’ve spent some 30 yrs in the practice of law and my opinion is that few member of the criminal bar or LE support this statute on its merits. This is political grand standing that puts real LE in a jam and assaults the civil liberties of all.
And yes, the federal laws also need fixing, and hopefully the Party of No will stop trying to shut down Washington so that immigration laws can be adjusted. One way or the other, I don’t want to live inside walls. Frost was being sarcastic when he suggested that good fences make for good neighbors, though with health adopted the Canucks may stop fretting about all the illegal US citizens in Canada
Re
Packetguy,
Again you’re lying! 8 USC 1304 clearly states :
“Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.”
Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or duly authorized local officers under 987 G program are empowered to conduct investigations into alienage. (Obviously you do not know much federal law.)
There aren’t law enforcement databases that can tell you if a person is illegal? How about ENFORCE, Enforcement Alien Removal Module (EARM), CIS, CLAIMS, TECS and even NCIC keeps records of aliens who have been deported in abstentia and have outstanding warrants for removal. Are you really dumb enough to believe there are no records of who the US government deports? How do you think illegal aliens get A-files? Or better yet how do you think a person can be tried for illegal re-entry (8 USC 1326) which requires the government to prove the alien has been not only ordered removed but actually left the U.S? Any AND ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CAN CALL ICE’S LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT CENTER (LESC) TO RECEIVE CITIZENSHIP INFORMATION 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK OR SEND AND NLETS MESSAGE, AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED TO YOU.
Again read the law before attempting to quote it. The only people who are “transported” to a federal facility are those who have already been arrested and are in the custody of the arresting agency and the agency has received verification that they are illegal. Not if they encounter you on the street and can’t determine your alienage (which a regular officer on the street cannot do unless he is empowered under 987 g to do so.) Not if you are a USC whose SSN can be run and easily proven to be yours or can answer easy questions like where were you born? What high school did you go to? You would be surprised most illegal’s can’t answer questions like this.
Nowhere does it say officers are going to be on the streets questioning everybody they see and transporting them anywhere nor does it give them the power to. This is just your misinformed interpretation of the little parts you have read and misunderstood!
Additionally, I never said 8 USC 1373 would or could cause a US Citizen to be locked up for ten days. The two aren’t even in the same paragraph. And as far as holding someone beyond the time they would normally be in jail. Most of the time alienage is determined during the in processing of the criminal. If LESC determines that the criminal is an illegal alien or a legal alien that is now subject to removal because of his crime they will send a detainer to the local law enforcement agency telling them to detain the criminal alien after his sentence for placement in removal proceedings.
I don’t know what law enforcement systems you work on but obliviously you don’t know much about what is out there. And relating to my understanding of American Jurisprudence, believe me I can assure you that I am not ignorant of it or of the law. What is funny is that you seem to blame law enforcement for everything that is wrong with the legal system (even though you supposedly work with law enforcement) even blaming them for 99% ( I am sure you have no statistical reference for that number) of the wrongful convictions. But since you have such a grasp on American Jurisprudence then you know that Law Enforcement officers don’t indict, convict or sentence anyone. Criminals are indicted and convicted by a jury of their peers and not a jury of police officers. And in case you were wondering, (since I doubt you are going to do the real research) the most common cause of wrongful conviction are because of false/mistaken identification by the victims. 75% of all convictions that have been overturn were based on this and have absolutely nothing to do with law enforcement.
So, again read the law before quoting it and check your facts before stating them!
Marc,
I have never said that the law is perfect or that the current federal laws were perfect either. I agree that we absolutely need Immigration reform. I will be the first to admitt most, if not all, things done by politicians are just for political grand standing with the rest of us left to debate their motives, as if they were noble or with purpose.
Immigration law is one of the most complicated and complex sections of law out there (Also, one reason that I love it so.) However, I hate reading articles, blog or comments where people seemingly provide disinformation or state out right lies, as if they were fact (“99% of the cases where innocent people are convicted, is is because LE abused due process” or “I can assure you that there is no database or authority to contact to veryify that someone ‘is not” illegal. There aren’t even any that verify someone IS illegal!”)
But Marc rest assured, I do see your point on state stop and identify laws relating to USC; however, my point is that Aliens legal or illegal are required to do so and I just have more confidence in LE that they are not going to run a muck arresting ever person in their sights.
P.S. You and I both know that the 9th Circuit is overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other district and is definitely not a LE friendly circuit. I am curious to see the legal battle unfold.
Paul
Paul –
> my point is that Aliens legal or illegal are required to do so and I just have more confidence in LE that they are not going to run a muck arresting ever person in their sights.
And now, in Arizona, anyone arrested, whether illegal or not, must prove their status under this law, in essence testifying against themselves, before they can leave. Before they are bailed out, before they are charged. Before they are entitled to a trial.
If I were arrested in AZ, my first and last words would be “Lawyer please”. I recommend it for anyone else. Why should *I*, a natural born citizen from another state, bear the weight of the failure of AZ’s social policies? Why should *I* have to, in effect, testify that I am in fact a citizen under pain of indefinite imprisonment?
Holding people because they refuse to present evidence that might or might not convict them is not the province of the police, it is the province of the courts subject to a proper hearing.
And because of this, if not for many other reasons, I expect this law will fail on Habeus Corpus grounds.
Barry,
No where in the law does it say YOU a US Citizen will have to prove that you are a US Citizen. POINT BLANK. The law clearly places the burden of verifying and determining alienage on the government (Title 11 chapter 7). However, if you are an alien and are not in compliance with the federal law; which requires them to carry ID and proof of legal status on them, 8 USC 1304, (now adopted into Az law and explained in Title 13 chapter 15 Section 1509) you have now also committed an offense under Az law.
Also, Barry your first and last words can be lawyer but when arrested the police are still permitted to ask you biographical information, like where are you from, SSN, DOB, current address and your name, as well as fingerprint you. All of which, can easily identify you and when provided to ICE determine if you are even an alien to start with. You all make seem as if it is some long complicated procedure to verify legal status, it is not. With the technology and databases today, an agent can query your entire life history with just your SSN.
And where do you get this indefinite imprisonment from? If you are a US Citizen why do you think it is hard to verify who you are?
Barry,
My apologies, I accidentally typed your name on the last post. The above post is from me and not Barry.
Paul
Barry,
No where in the law does it say YOU a US Citizen will have to prove that you are a US Citizen. POINT BLANK. The law clearly places the burden of verifying and determining alienage on the government (Title 11 chapter 7). However, if you are an alien and are not in compliance with the federal law; which requires them to carry ID and proof of legal status on them, 8 USC 1304, (now adopted into Az law and explained in Title 13 chapter 15 Section 1509) you have now also committed an offense under Az law.
Also, Barry your first and last words can be lawyer but when arrested the police are still permitted to ask you biographical information, like where are you from, SSN, DOB, current address and your name, as well as fingerprint you. All of which, can easily identify you and when provided to ICE determine if you are even an alien to start with. You all make seem as if it is some long complicated procedure to verify legal status, it is not. With the technology and databases today, an agent can query your entire life history with just your SSN.
And where do you get this indefinite imprisonment from? If you are a US Citizen why do you think it is hard to verify who you are?
Paul is exactly right, the Arizona lawmakers/lawyers, specifically made sure the bill/law was a reinforcement to the federal law. Knowing that liberals would, try to attack the law stating “racial profiling” and 8th and 14th amendment violations. They out smarted the the liberals, by writing it this way. Many of the Republicans in Az. strongly believe in the Constitution, and that is also why they were specific in not trying to supersede the Fed Law, but replicate it.
“E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.”
I am willing to accept the majority of the law as is accept the above passage. It could lead to the harrassment and possible infringement of rights of legal US citizens.
Charles,
Where are you copying that quote from. What section is it in. If this is from a federal statute, please provide the statute, as this is not in the AZ law
Well, so much for an informed discussion….
Victor, I am a registered Republican. You however make my case about political grandstanding and the disservice that does all of us. The statute is bad policy, will undoubtedly be struck down by a Court if anything left of the Ct that narrowly allowed a less invasive Nevada law, threatens to put the people of AZ behind lawsuits with huge financial implications, not to mention the bit authorizing suits against LE. This was a publicity stunt; it serves only to further polarize our polity. Moreover, illegal aliens working under assumed SS# are pumping money into the treasury which in a very real sense is being paid out to the retired whiners in AZ receiving SS benefits
Why didn’t AZ tighten up controls on employment where it’s efforts might have proven useful, or even appropriate? Because these aliens are of course employed by those making all the fuss.
To be honest, our organic documents reflect the fear our founding fathers had of the unwashed. Even Jefferson finally admitted that his belief in revolution was misplaced. And our national focus on education stems in part from enfranchisement. Unfortunately, the US is failing in education, in no small part because the same folk Hamilton feared live in an alternate reality and want their kids taught that the Earth was created ~6000 yrs ago, just before humans frolikd w trex.
Paul wrote :> No where in the law does it say YOU a US Citizen will have to prove that you are a US Citizen.
Hmm. Are you reading the same text I am? Section B on this very page, in the 2nd sentence, says that anyone arrested can not be released until they prove they are NOT illegal aliens. Presumably if they ARE illegal aliens, they will stay arrested. So, if an arrested citizen ever wants to see the light of day again, they must satisfy local police, not a court, of their status. This is true, whether a citizen or not.
Incase the words are hard to read in context of legalese, here they are standing alone:
> Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.
This clearly applies to everyone arrested, including citizens.
Paul also wrote:
> Also, Barry your first and last words can be lawyer but when arrested the police are still permitted to ask you biographical information, like where are you from, SSN, DOB, current address and your name, as well as fingerprint you. All of which, can easily identify you and when provided to ICE determine if you are even an alien to start with. You all make seem as if it is some long complicated procedure to verify legal status, it is not. With the technology and databases today, an agent can query your entire life history with just your SSN.
No one is saying it would be a long and complicated procedure. I could show them my driver’s license and be done with it, but that is not the point or the principal.
And by the way, while they can ask for all this information, I don’t have to give it to them, and under this new law, if I lawyer up, they probably can’t ask anymore, because now the very questions regarding ID are investigations into a crime as defined in this law. They would do well to stop asking once a lawyer is asked for.
Personally, I’d rather take my chances with a court than some random cops that snatched me up, and I think everyone would be better off doing the same even if the outcome is the same. We don’t let the courts do law enforcement’s job, and we ought not let law enforcement do the Court’s job either. among other matters, it is a separation of powers issue.
> And where do you get this indefinite imprisonment from? If you are a US Citizen why do you think it is hard to verify who you are?
I don’t think it is hard. I have the sufficient proof in my pocket generally. But that doesn’t mean I have to share it. And if I don’t, they have nothing to go on, and the law is clear I can not be released until the investigation has satisfied that I am a US citizen. If I don’t cooperate, as is my right, then I will be there until I do, or until the courts intervene, or until the cops break the law at their own substantial risk by letting me go without verifying my status.
Now, just because *I* generally carry a sufficient driver’s license does not mean every citizen or legal alien does. Underage kids have no ID on them generally, yet they are known to get arrested. The law makes no exceptions for juveniles. Tourists from many countries are allowed here without visas I believe, and may not be carrying even a passport on them when arrested. Not that a foreign passport seems to be sufficient proof of status according to the law anyway, but still…
Victor -
Notice people in this thread are not talking about racial profiling at all? This law has more holes in it that a mile-long fishing net.
Perhaps in your own ethnic background, people have not been oppressed, so you have no solidarity with those who are oppressed, and you have no radar for when oppression is visible on the horizon so that it can be deflected before it arrives. If so, bully for you!
Perhaps you are not aware that Arizona has a history of incarcerating US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, and that, combined with this law, ought be enough to get anyone’s civil rights radar working. If they have one, of course.
Paul,
For the record, I’m a Tea Party conservative. And a registered Republican. All the databases you cite contain zero data about native citizens you can’t use any of them to verify anative citizen’s status. The same databases also lack records on the vast majority of illegals. If the police need to verify my status, for instance, there is no database they can find this info in. Even the ssn database is worthless for this purpose. This has nothing to do with the reuirements of aliens to carry documentation. It’s not the aliens I’m worried about, it’s the citizens.
The radical aspect of the AZ law is that for the first time in history a citizen can be detained until he proves his citizenship or until LE “verifies” it for him.
Your right, I was generalizing, but to prove a point. Thanks for bringing that up. Just like I’m generalizing, so is the law. “Illegal Immigrants” is what the law is for enforcing, whether they’re illegal Canadians pulled over for running a red light, if a couple of Brit’s get into a bar fight, etc. All of them will be subject to prove they are citizens. All Americans in the USA are required by law to carry Identity. That identity is subject to verification by law enforcement if your stopped for any suspicious activity.
Barry, this law mimic’s the Fed Law that’s not being enforced federally. So “racial profiling” is NOT prevalent in either law, quite the contrary.
To Marc and Barry, If you read the entire law, they do go after businesses see page 10-13
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
By the way, nobody has yet answered my question about how an out of state citizen proves his status. A DL won’t qualify under the AZ law, since few if any require proof of citizenship. CA doesn’t, for example. Someone tell me how a citizen from CA, for instance, could ever comply short of carrying a passport or birth certificate. Anyone?
The AZ statute refers to the need for those stopped, arrested or detained to prove LEGAL PRESENCE in the US, not citizenship. In 1986, I was highly annoyed at having to prove my legal right to work in this country every time I applied for a job. It so happens that my right to work here flows from my citizenship, but it need not. No one cared about my citizenship, just so long as I had proof of my right to work here. It sucked for me, a citizen, and getting the required proof was more onerous back then–but I did it, as I have in many employment situations since. New quantum of problem in ’86 required a new solution–we all had to prove our right to work here in order to lawfully gain employment. PIA for citizens, but no one bitches about it now. With that resolution came “once in a lifetime amnesty” for those who could prove they had been here for the specified time before that law was passed….
Along with this blog, all I here is US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, or Hitler’s Germany, or Slavery. You guys need to get real. This is 2010, everyone has either a cellphone, camera, text, twitter, Facebook, my space, or many of them. This law is so if you get pulled over or stopped on the street for being intoxicated, or fighting, or suspicious activity, you’re required to provide identity that is subject to verification. WHICH IS THE FEDERAL LAW. If a “rogue” police officer is profiling, then he and the city will be sued in a civil court.
Packetguy, Show me in the law where a DL is not sufficient I.D., I might of missed it, but as long as the DL is from a DMV, its a legit document an it doesn’t matter if it’s out of state or not. Also, if you claim you ARE a U.S. citizen, and you ARE NOT, under Fed Law, you’re FOREVER BANNED from becoming an American citizen.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Victor -
Perhaps you should note your own propensity for generalizing, and see if it affects your ability to do research and make rational conclusions.
For example, there is no Federal law that says all citizens muct carry id. That would surely be news to my 4 month old niece, born in the shadow of Ground Zero late last year. I am sure it would be news to every school child in your town or city, walking around with no ID.
Where does one go to get this ID? There is no such place in my county here in California, for example.
> If a “rogue” police officer is profiling, then he and the city will be sued in a civil court.
Actually, perhaps YOU should read the law carefully. It specifically indemnifies individual officers from being sued for their actions under this law.
As for pages 1-13 of the link, that is not “going after businesses” in the right way – it is narrowing the possible legal defenses against State action so as to make entrapment easier.
> you’re required to provide identity that is subject to verification.
Yes, that seems to be the purpose, cntrary to our principles of liberty in this country.
Remember, (or learn if you never did) that in the US, the power of government is granted BY the People. In most countries, the people are subjects of the government, but here it is the other way around. Always has been, always will be.
Any law, such as this one, that is not in keeping with those principles, will not stand.
> WHICH IS THE FEDERAL LAW.
No, it is not. Sorry to disappoint you Victor, but it is not the law that US citizens must carry ID. There are countries that have such laws, perhaps you are mistaking us with them?
Anyway, the reason people refer t incidents such as AZ interring legal citizens is because it was just such an atmosphere of “tyranny of the majority” that such an even occurred, supported by the very state in question in the lifetime of people still alive. My god friend was interred in such a camp as a young baby – for what? The crime that his ancestors were from Japan?
As a country we universally regret that incident and work to make sure the conditions to have something similar never ripen again. Which is fine, because that is in perfect alignment with our Founders and Framers creating a system where we would NOT be subject to rule by the easily inflamed masses in tyranny, bur rather by thoughtful reflection and consideration with a long term view.
Victor – whoever told you that the Federal government requires all citizens to “carry papers” and present them on demand misled you, either on purpose or not, but they were simply wrong on that.
To the extent your world view is based on that, I know it is going to suck to have to revise it, I am sure much of who you are as a person is tied up in all of that, but I am here for you buddy if you need help getting through it
Barry,
Your neice has a Federal issued I.D. whether you are aware of it or not. It is her SSN. Unless her parents are living off the grid and do not file a US Income Tax return, the girl has one.
joe
No, all Americans are emphatically NOT required to carry identity. Indeed the 9th Circuit protects me from such claims, and SCOTUS seems to agree. So what we have ate selk-proclaimed “conservative” folk in AZ wishing to curtail my rights under the constitution when I am in their state, all in the name of keeping people from coming to this country. Of course the underlying question is, “Why?” Aliens fill jobs that are otherwise unspoken for, and if you told them to simply stop at customs and pick up a work visa they likely would, as opposed to risking their life with el coyote
on the otherhand, if I were to suggest that every citizen must have an RFID inserted subcutaneously with auto ignitions interlocked so that of the RFID does not show valid license and current insurance my guess is that the people of AZ would be panic stricken, forget about the fact that such a policy would quickly shut down one of the biggest scourges in this country (far worse than illegal immigration.)
Ya just can’t have it both ways.
Packetguy -
I think the law is pretty clear that any valid state, federal or local ID will suffice, see section b4 in red above.
Although in my mind, that means local AZ law enforcement is putting a lot of faith in a random clerk in remote agency office in a distant state.
My gf works for the State of California, she has a work ID. Is that sufficient? It is valid, it is issued by the State.
Is AZ prepared to validate every possible form of ID that might be presented?
Ironically to me for a bill supposedly targeting immigrants the , the list does not appear to include a valid visa stamp in a foreign passport as evidence that a person has a right to be in the US.
This seems a major oversight.
Why?
Because the bill is NOT about immigrants passing through AZ, it is solely about Mexicans and other Central Americans who reside in Arizona, and people who look like them.
Barry,
the new AZ law says that only documents that themselves require proof of citiZenship are acceptable. Moat DLs dint require citizenship-California, for example. Perhaps the law was written poorly, but read its list of valid ID’s and tell me what, beyond a BC or passport, qualifies.
Victor,
You said ” All Americans in the USA are required by law to carry Identity. That identity is subject to verification by law enforcement if your stopped for any suspicious activity”. Youre absolutely wrong on this. The whole point of this discussion is that this new AZ law is attempting to make that the case. Fortunately we don’t (yet) live in such a police state. In the US we don’t have to show papers, we don’t have to turn over our guns to the police (yet), and we don’t have to let the police search our homes, cars, or persons. Except in AZ, where LE agencies feel entitled to breach all of these rights.
You probably think citizens can’t carry guns in their cars without a permit, or that the police are entitled to search your car without a warrant. You should get educated about your rights. They’re precious, and you’ll want to know what you’ve lost when they’re gone.
Packetguy,
Actually, California DOES require proof of citizenship. Here’s the link:
http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP
It says:
State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (ID) card and driver license to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States to help safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents.
Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable:
-US Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local vital statistics office)
-US Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad
-Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
-USCIS American Indian Card
-Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
-US Passport or US Passport Card
-US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent of a military member, retired member, discharged from service, medical/religious personnel)
-Common Access Card (only if designated as Active military or Active Reserve or Active Selected Reserve)
-Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
-Northern Mariana Card
-USCIS US Citizen ID Card
-Permanent Resident Card
-Temporary Resident Identification Card
-Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
-Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
-Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I-94)
-”Processed for I-551″ stamped in a valid foreign passport
-Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit
-Refugee travel document
-Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisdiction. Must contain name, birth date, place of birth, legal presence status, and judge’s signature.
-Certification from California Department of Corrections or California Youth Authority
-Employment Authorization Card
-Valid I-94 stamped “Refugee,” “Parole or Parolee,” “Asylee,” or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 212d(2), HP or PIP
-Valid I-94 with attached photo stamped “Processed for I-551 temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent residence”
-Notice of Action (I-797 Approved Petition) – must indicate approved extension of stay or change in status that grants temporary or permanent residency, or indicates that an original, duplicate or renewal Resident Alien card is forthcoming.
-Immigration judge’s order granting asylum
-Mexican Border Crossing Card with valid I-94
-U.S. Border Crossing Identification card with valid I-94
Seems pretty clear to me what California wants as proof…
“Except in AZ, where LE agencies feel entitled to breach all of these rights.”
Really? I suppose you can cite some of the numerous examples of your alleged warrantless searches in homes of innocent Arizonans for me to read here? I am outraged! Why aren’t the ACLU, Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, and any other people without jobs organizing protest over these warrantless searches?
I guess I must have missed the hundreds of stories in the newspapers, for I ams sure they would have made the front pages of the NY Slimes, the Washington Compost, the LA Slimes, and the USSA Today.
Only ONE of those listed documents is required; the Military ID does not include citizenship information, as I recall. Permanent Residents are entitled to serve in the US military if they wish, and many do. DoD certainly verifies the uniformed member’s date of birth, thus effectively verifying citizenship in a roundabout way, but it need not be US citizenship.
Barry,
I think the phrase in B4 you’re missing is:
“IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
As far as I can tell, no states require that your prove your U.S. citizenship before issuing a DL, and DLs are issued to foreigners on extended visits all the time. Here’s the list of requirements from the CA DMV:
1. Visit a DMV office (make an Appointment(s) for faster service)
2. Complete application form DL 44 (An original DL 44 form must be submitted. Copies will not be accepted.)
3. Give a thumb print
4. Have your picture taken
5. Provide your social security number. It will be verified with the Social Security Administration while you are in the office.
6. Verify your birth date and legal presence If your current name no longer matches the name on your birth data/legal presence document, see “True Full Name” and “How to Change Your Name” for more information.
7. Provide your true full name
8. Pay the application fee
9. Pass a vision exam
10. Pass a traffic laws and sign test. There are 36 questions on the test. You have three chances to pass.
The only verification of “legal presence” is the applicant’s say-so; no birth certificate or other proof is required. I just went through this process with a friend, and we noted the vast majority of applicants could not even speak English, yet no proof of citizenship or even display of a green card was required. In fact, on the day in question my friend couldn’t take his test because the only test booklets they had were in Spanish.
Clearly a CA DL does not rise to the “PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES” standard in the AZ law.
this law is the most out ragest law that i have ever seen i am appualled that this law was passed and that the president hasent stop it yet.
Nick,
If you want to see some truly outrageous laws, go to http://www.loonylaws.com.
As to the president intervening, he’s not allowed to. That is the power bestowed upon the judicial system. The President can only voice his opinion
packetguy -
Well, it is not that the law requires you to PROVE beyond all doubt your citizenship, only to persuade the arresting LEO to a certain standard.
It does seem poorly written, because it seems to think that no one not resideing in AZ will ever get arrested there, that no one younger than driving age will ever get arrested, that no tourists on visas will ever get arrested, etc.
And then it seems to allow virtually any valid ID form any rinky-dink government agency anywhere in the US to meet the new standard of persuasion I mentioned.
In all, this logic seems full of swiss cheese holes , and the holes in this logic betray the other claims as to what the law says, what it does, and what its reason for being is.
Note also that the Governor is reported as having said as she signed it that the State will NOW develop some course for LEO to learn how to not profile.
Perhaps they could have simply passed a law that all LEO take that course, and then demonstrate it works via actual practice before passing this draconian law that relies on perfect and eternal statewide implementation of a process that is not yet defined.
Why did AZ legislators take that leap of faith anyway?
It clearly is a leap of faith if the terms of avoiding profiling have not been defined and taught, or at least made public.
I contacted the North Bergen, NY police department at (XXX) XXX-XXXX to confirm my findings (or lack thereof). According to Officer Rovelo, it is a state law that a person must carry an ID on them at all times. He could not cite the specific code because he said it was a very old law on the books, along the lines of you cannot allow your horse to walk on certain sides of the street. He then went on to say that you would not get cited in accordance with this law, but rather the more recent “failure to produce ID” or obstruction code. And to re-confirm, this is indeed a state, not municipal or county ordinance. Most states have a similar law.
yeah, ask a cop about the law, then accept his answer even though he says he can’t tell you the statute. Damn some people are just too trusting of police. No, people, cannont be required to carry ID on them.
I look at this law as similar to the affirmative action law. There was an unfair advantage at one time and “unconstitutionally” we made a law to level the playing field.
there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., AZ has the second largest amount of kidnappings in the world next to Mexico City. Similar to Affirmative Action, a drastic measure must be taken to correct the issue. I feel this law is actually far less drastic than Affirmative Action. this law mimics the Fed law, it just allows the local and state police to curtail the illegal immigration population. And similar to the White Policeman who is more qualified, but is passed over for a black officer, and therefore inconvenienced, is no different than a legal person being stopped for speeding or walking “funny” and asked to show ID.
You guys are going to love this one. Personally, I think profiling should be acceptable at airports and in states neighboring our borders. If there is a 6ft serial killer with brown hair and brown eyes and cops think he’s in a particular neighborhood or in a mall. They aren’t going to stop every black guy or 5 ft, old lady walking around. They’re going after the white guys. The President should say to the American people: ” Hey, we’re living in a crucial time right now and if you fit the profile of a terrorist, we have instructed Airport police to politely ask you for ID, you will be treated with courtesy and we apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for helping us fight terrorism.” And do the same for Hispanics in AZ. I would have zero problem if I were asked to do the same. It would also increase the legal immigrants and many Muslims to help solve the problem, so they would not be targeted.
I am a second generation Hispanic immigrant and I applaud Arizona, finally a State has made the hard choice to hold the Federal government accountable for enforcement of Federal Immigration policy. This law will not be found unconstitutional as it mirrors the Federal law; the only real change is that a citizen can file a lawsuit against anyone who restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws.
G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
Bottom line is it is time to stop punishing those who abide by the law, and start punishing those who break the law. If you legally come into this country you don’t get free medical and free education, but if you come into this country illegally you do. My Abuelita saw this as a very simple situation, either you respect the laws of this country or you don’t, if you don’t then don’t come here…she was always proud to be an American.
Berry,
All I am going to say is read the law off of the Arizona legislatures website not the cut and pasted interpretation above. Read the law not an article. Your comments only prove my point about the fact that you are trying to argue something you have never read.
And Marc those systems most certainly do contain information on native citizens. Again, I really know you have no clue about law enforcement databases or systems.
Victor – Are you serious? None of what you say makes sense according to legal principles. Ask anyone who has attended law school if you are not clear why.
Mike – your comment is not much better. What you cite is NOT the only difference, as has been noted at length here already.
Amng the issues:
1 – The burden is on citizens to prove they are not breaking a crime
2 – This is the province of the courts, not the police
3 – Violation of the Amendment right to not testify
4 – Habeus corpus issues
6 – Not sure about AZ, but every state I know of offers free education to all people living there, and maybe you haven’t followed the news in the last year and a half, but lots of people DO get free medical, and soon all of us will.
> Bottom line is it is time to stop punishing those who abide by the law,
So, yeah. That.
But not this law – I am a law abiding citizen and this law does nothing but institute punishment on me that didn’t exist before.
That is the thanks I get for vacationing and spending my hard earned money in your state just last year?
Barry,
“that no tourists on visas will ever get arrested, etc.”
LOL What did they do– leave their visas at the airport and tell TSA that they’d pick up their visas on the way back? *sheesh* LOL…
“…but lots of people DO get free medical, and soon all of us will.”
Nothing is free, my friend. Nothing…
That’s working out very well for Greece and Spain…
So well, in fact, that we borrowed $70 Billion to lend them, and we’re darn near broke ourselves…
Margaret Thatcher said “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” Truer words have never been spoken.
I like the fact that Nancy Pelosi told musicians that they can quit working to focus on their “creativity” and not have to be job-locked because they would have free healthcare. Maybe I could quit my job and let the State become MY Nanny, too… You think? In fact, let’s all quit our jobs and become creative and just bankrupt this country. Cool! Why just stop at musicians?
Hear her lips speak it yourself here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65950
Now, back to the subject at hand…
“this law does nothing but institute punishment on me that didn’t exist before.”
Well, not exactly. The Arizona law copies EXISTING FEDERAL LAW. The phrase:
“12 …if the
13 person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).”
is found in 5 different places in the AZ law. With my incredibly low IQ of 33, I can interpret that to mean that the Federal law existed prior to passage of the Arizona law. Otherwise, why would they even mention it in the AZ law? Maybe my 33 IQ just can’t comprehend that concept “because I are berry schmart…”
Paul -
Are you 8 years old? Because you argue like you are.
I have read the entire text, multiple times. I don’t knwo why AZ insists on ALL CAPS or publishing things in bright blue as though the web is still formatted as though this is 1994, but still…
If you have something specific I have said, and a specific clause or section or whatever that indicates, in your mind, where I am wrong, then by all means share it.
I have written a lot of information here since your last post, and I wrote as though I took your last post seriously. Please give me the same courtesy and indicate that you actually understand what I wrote instead of just giving a childish blanket dismissal.
Just to recap for you, yest the law does not require you to prove you are a citizen, because that is not the only class of poeple allowed to be in AZ. Duh.
What it requires is this (a direct quote of the law!)
“not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following”
The burden of presenting the proof is on the arrestee, as I said. What that burden must show, is not citizenship, but rather that one is not an alien who is unlawfully present. That includes visitors on valid visas for instance.
But the burden of providing proof is clearly placed on the arrested person, not LEO. What the other sections say is how, once presented with alleged proof, LEO can go about judging it.
Big difference.
Try getting arrested under this law, and not offering proof of your status. I predict you will be waiting to leave a long time.
Spoken like a true liberal, Barry. Everyone gets a free education and soon, free medical, and let’s not forget Rainbows and sugar cookies for everyone. (at least until they ban sugar.) Sorry Barry, any of the 49% of America that actually pays taxes, pays for education and Healthcare (although it will be de-funded, repealed or found unconstitutional) I’m pretty sure that’s what Mike meant. (sorry to put words in your laptop Mike) As far as states having laws that require you to have some form of ID if you are over the age of 17, check again, because they do. Even if it’s a non-pictured ID like a S/S card.
And Barry, don’t be so quick to dismiss the correlation between Affirmative Action and the Az. law. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html
Both are a necessity to temporarily level the playing field and to take the handcuffs off the police officers so they can do there job and enforce the law. And similar to A/A, some citizens will be affected in a negative way. Where it might be like the Bakke case, Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants-the school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students. where the Supreme Court ruled in his favor 5-4.
Or it could be like the Grutter v. Bollinger case. The Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rate students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified.
Sometimes there is a necessity to take measures that walk a thin line to achieve a bigger goal. People are not allowed to be in this country illegally. When a U.S. city has the second largest kidnapping rate in the WORLD. Extreme TEMPORARY measures, must be taken to level the playing field. Just like A/A did in the 60′s.
The law will work and many illegals will be sent home. We still need to finish building the fence in Az. But this will put a major dent in the kidnappings, violent crime, and illegal immigrants. And just like Alan Bakke, there will be some collateral damage, a few LEGAL Americans will be detained and inconvenienced, but for the good of the whole, it’s a necessity.
Victor – why are you insulting our intelligence with arguments that there is even a single state, let alone a singel county or town in the entire US that does not offer a free education to people?
maybe you missed your opportunity dude, but wherever you grew up, it was there for the taking and it still is today.
You can live in a fantasyland where there is not universal free education, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to take what you say seriously.
In fact it more likely means the opposite – whatever you say will NOT be taken seriously by anyone interested in rational facts.
Which would include me, and apparently does NOT include you.
Victor -
Last I checked, police, with the power to arrest and detain people, have never been involved in Medical School admissions, in any state.
But I clearly haven’t given that matter as much thought as you have.
Won’t you share your evidence with us that police detaining citizens illegally, contrary to the principles the country is built on – is equivalent to deciding medical school admissions?
Surely there are laws, or even scholars who have laid out such a case, and you are the person to lead us to them.
Won’t you share how you came to know this remarkable assertion?
Please provide some links from the best recognized authorities – lawyers I hope, but do your best! – so the rest of us can be persuaded of your wisdom in this matter?
I wait with bated breath!
Did you read the post? It’s not a “free” education Barry. American taxpayers PAY for education. It’s only free if your parents are the 50% of the population that doesn’t pay any federal tax. otherwise, education is not free. I’m not one of those fortunate free loaders who don’t pay federal tax. Neither were my parents, so education was not free. My parents paid federal taxes, so I could go to public school. Healthcare won’t be free for many Americans either.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2003, that you must show identification. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 . I hate to say it, but this law may be upheld by the USSC.
Ever travel to a foreign country without your passport?
As of 2008, 24 states have a “stop and identify” law. But many also have very old state laws on the books, that you must have some for of identification on you if you’re out in public and over the age of 16 or 17. The police will file the arrest “failure to produce ID” or an obstruction code.
No, brown bomber, the supreme ct did NOT require that you produce ID. Read the case and quit pontificating (and yes, I am an atty)
victor, unfortunately you are not only gravely misinformed about the law, you appear to be arrogant with respect to your ignorance, resorting when shown to be in error to bullying and name calling. Grow up. And the pontificating about your payment of taxes is simply pathetic. I’d guess I likely have paid more tax than you, but as a figure of speech, education in the US is free, ie available without payment for instruction. However, most of the cost of education in this country is based on property tax revenues and almost everyone in the country, either directly or indirectly (eg the landlord passes taxes along to tenants) pays propery taxes, while home owners get assistance from the IRS by way of being able to deduct interest ec, while tenants can’t
and I will try to remind all the other bill spporters; the law will have different ramifications based on who it is applied against, and the AZ law is unconstitutional as to citizens as soon as it is presented to the 9th Cir.
Marc,
“and the AZ law is unconstitutional as to citizens as soon as it is presented to the 9th Cir.
Then that means that the 24 year-old existing Federal law is also unconstitutional, since the simply copied existing ICE and Border Patrol law into the state statute, but still made sure that the Feds are the ones who will be determining immigration status– not AZ LEOs. Why weren’t you outraged 24 years ago when that Federal law was passed?
Boy! I’d love to see the appeal go to the 9th circuit. Why? If you are an attorney, then you are aware that:
“…the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.”
Source:
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit#Most_overturned_court_in_the_United_States
Bring it on…
As a potential college studant, I am EAGER to learn where you can get a “free” education in this country. I have call many colleges, and ALL want some form of payment for tuition, building usage, lab fees, and books. Now, I AM NOT saying you are misinformed, I am genuinely curious. I have my own opinions as far as the AZ reform laws. I am NOT here to discuss those at this time.
[...] payment for the usual crowd and coordinate coverage with the local TV stations. Here’s the text of the legislation. DISFRUTE DE LA [...]