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.
Alfred, If any liberals watched any Beck show in the last 2 weeks, they would be amazed. I challenge any liberal to watch 3 shows of Beck (one has to be a Friday show) and then make those same assertions. DVR the show so you can F/F through 20 to 30 seconds of rants if you want, but watch the show and you will change your opinion.
Great points Alfred.
Barry,
Sadly, the times they are achangin’.
While we’ve never had to carry ID before, this influx of the uncredentialed may necessitate it if no other control measures suffice.
As Barry surely knows, LEOs “shall” make a “reasonable attempt, when practicable” to determine a person’s immigration status in most “lawful” stops, detentions, and arrest interactions. People with various valid Arizona or other U.S. IDs are presumed not to be aliens. (Correct me if I am wrong, but immigrants with “green cards” must have them at all times in public.) Arizona has nearly a tenth of its population in the state who have crossed the international border illegally, in violation of U.S. law. Arizona is asking its LEOs to enforce U.S. (not Arizona) immigration law.
When driving, one is required to have one’s driver’s license, surely reasonable, if stopped by an LEO. If 20 people escape from a jail, you betcha passengers in cars might have to ID themselves as LEOs try to cordon off highways to escape. Arizona has hundreds of thousands of people who did something similar, escaping from societies with little to offer them economically, moving to another with the many benefits of our welfare society and plenty of opportunities for more income. A small number could be tolerated, but a large number strains the financial resources of the state’s governments and health care facilities.
As I have written, something must be done to reduce the attractiveness of the U.S. for illegal immigrants and that something would require concerted international efforts to improve the economies of the nations in the Western Hemisphere. Leftist governments, like our own, impede such cooperation. Short of that long-range effort, which would be more ambitious than the Marshall Plan, the U.S. must strengthen the at-risk border, modify some laws, and enforce its laws. The Arizona law accords with the last need.
And don’t airline passengers have to ID themselves, especially given the reality of terrorism? Americans have to undergo far more intrusive contact with the government when they seek to board commercial airplanes than showing papers. The “show papers” concern, like a concern about the means used to prove one does not bring an explosive device aboard an airplane, would be respectable if reality did not suggest measures taken are sensible, given the risks and the realities.
On Mr. Obama, I could have added the results of a National Journal scoring of U.S. senators for 2007, which rated him the Senate’s most liberal senator based on votes, for 2007, at 95.5%. Senator Biden also was among the senate’s most liberal senators, getting a 98% most liberal ranking on foreign policy, tied with Sen. Sanders. Both Sens. Obama and Sen. Clinton shifted their votes to the left in 2007, surely to gain cred among the Democrats’ redhots, like moveon.org, Daily Kos, and Marc. Sen. Obama’s slightly less “liberal” votes in prior years likely were cast to please the Illinois electorate and his 2007 votes showed the real Obama. His presidency supports that view.
If the penalties and class of crime (e.g. class 2 felony) were anywhere near as severe for employers of illegal aliens as they are for the individual illegals themselves this might actually do something.
Illegals certainly make a strain on the budget of the State of Arizona in some ways, but there are hundreds of employers (including individuals, small businesses and corps) who benefit and profit from the use of massive numbers of illegal immigrants as workers. This is just a ridiculous oversight.
Don’t even get me started on profiling. Seriously if there was a law like this in Chicago, it would be very confusing due to the huge numbers of illegals here who look just like the dominant culture (i.e. white). With all the illegal Eastern Europeans, etc, in addition to the Latinos and Mid-Easterners, law enforcement’s head would be spinning. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in this country. It drains our resources in many ways, and should be taken seriously by everyone. Profiling, stopping people on the street. Oh my God, if you’re a Native American (and could be mistaken for an Hispanic — how ironic) or a Mexican American citizen or legal resident, you can’t even go for a walk in your neighborhood without an ID.
To all Police State Phobias here.
Here is how it works.
A police officer makes contact with an individual. This individual may be involved with a auto traffic situation, or from a dispatched call from the officer’s dispatcher, or thru paperwork supplied by his department that must me attended to.
The officer early on in the contact of the person of question will ask for ID. They never ask for citizenship papers as the first form. It is always a common form of ID, such as a DL. When the officer is supplied with an ID of the person of question, he checks with his dispatcher for verification of the person and whether their are any outstanding warrants. If the ID does not match, the officer then usually arrests the individual for giving false information. If the information does match and there is no need to hold the individual, the officer proceeds with what his stop was for or why the contact is being made. An officer may ask for an individual’s green card, visa, or citizenship papers after the preliminary things are done. For instance, if the individual in question says he is a citizen of another country, then the officer will ask for any valid papers for his presence in AZ. If the individual cannot supply the necessary papers, the officer should at that point make an arrest. If the person of question supplies papers, they are verified and if they are in proper order, the individual is free from further questions about his presence in AZ.
OCocker -
do you understand any American history at all? Do you realize that we ecame a country after fighting a war precisely because the British treated us the way you would have our own government treat us?
If we don’t want to be different now from the British as they were then, then why even have a country?
Which others of my civil rights are you willing to give up on my behalf and why?
You do know that habeus corpus, the right to not be arrested and held without cause, dates back 800 years to the Magna Carta, and is the most fundamental freedom from which all others derive?
You are really ready to toss away 800 years of history, to the very foundation of our legal system, just to have this law in Arizona?
Are you sure you have REALLY thought this through? What the broader implications are? What other countries you can think of, past or present, have forced people to “show papers”? Are those the countries you want to be like?
As for Alfred’s misreading of my post, try again my friend. I am not suggesting that any stop is unlawful in my scenario. Maybe they caught a guy red-handed with a case of soda coming out of a Circle-K.
Still, the law provides for habeus corpus violations, and requires LEO to make a decision on citizenship status before release, even if bail would normally be proffered. This is true for anyone arrested under any law in the state of Arizona should this law go into effect, not just those arrested under *this* law.
And that is a big BIG problem that has nothing top do with immigration policy and everything to do with separation of powers and habeus corpus.
[...] 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). ‘” [Keytlaw Source] [...]
@Tom -
Yes, that is one possible path through a siutuation, and it is a problematical one regardless of the immigration issue.
Keep in mind that a DL is sufficient proof of citizenship according to this law.
Now, in your situation, a person mere having contact with an officer (not arrested or even detained) can escape the situation without providing proof of citizenship – failure to do so results in arrest.
Yet, as Marc and others have pointed out before, the Supreme Court has ruled in such cases, a person does NOT have to provide any id to an officer. At most, maybe just a name.
So, if an officer is playing the way you describe – and many if not most will, I am sure, and a citizen is playing according to knowledge of his or her rights as enumerated by the Supreme Court of the US, which the police are obligated to abide by, there is going to be a conflict.
And the fault for that conflict will fall on the shoulders of the officers, since they are in the wrong, and should know better.
Yours is not the only problematical path through a situation as proscribed by this law, I have listed at least one more that is independent of immigration issues.
By presenting the path in such detail, I feel like you are actually making the opposite case you intended to make.
Tom,
You said “A police officer makes contact with an individual. This individual may be involved with a auto traffic situation, or from a dispatched call from the officer’s dispatcher, or thru paperwork supplied by his department that must me attended to.
The officer early on in the contact of the person of question will ask for ID.”
This is the crux of the problem. Currently in the US, you and I are FREE TO JUST GIVE OUR NAMES AND WALK AWAY at this point, no matter what the “lawful contact” is for. This is an essential, critical personal liberty, because it prevents LE from detaining people indefinitely without cause. And by the way, the contact may not be an auto situation — an LEO simply walking up to someone is a “lawful contact”. For traffic situations, you have to give your DL because you’re required to have a license to drive — it’s a privilege, not a right. But we all have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and history shows that “show your papers” governments exploit that process to indefinitely detain someone. Not having papers that are “in order” is an automatic carte blanche to take someone away (I’m happy to cite examples if you need them).
Your statement “If the individual cannot supply the necessary papers, the officer should at that point make an arrest.” is the ENTIRE PROBLEM with the AZ law. Failure to have papers is probably cause for arrest! This is evil. Very evil.
There are some proposed revisions that may fix this in AZ. But they’re not passed yet, and they’re not terribly clear.
[...] Have any of Arizona’s critics actually read the bill? [...]
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously sided with LEO’s asking someone for ID if they “Looked Mexican” (San Clemente, Ca.) for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/jan-brewer/arizona-immigration-law-rewrite-lays-rest-worries-/
I am not a lawyer. I am a legal alien. To me it is quite clear that from this law, I should be prepared to prove my legal alien status. This can be achieved by showing my green card, which I do usually carry with me. However, my children are US citizens. To prove their legal status we would have to show a birth certificate. This is certainly not something we normally carry around with us. At the moment my daughter’s passport and birth certificate are both in the mail to the state dept, since she is renewing her passport. She therefore has NO proof of citizenship in her possession at this time. To the US citizens in favor of this law – do you realize you will be obliged to carry around proof of your citizenship under this law? People who do not drive do not have drivers licenses, and people who do not travel abroad do not have passports. The only option therefore would be to have a birth certificate in your possession. When someone is applying for a passport and sends away their birth certificate should that person stay at home for 5 weeks? People seem to think that if they are not illegal aliens, this law will not apply to them, but it will, because you will have to PROVE you are a citizen/legal alien, and you will therefore have to carry such proof on you at all times. Do you normally send your teenagers to school with their birth certificate on them?
Sonya,
Since legal residency had to be established before the enrollment, proof of enrollment will suffice as legal residency. Carry their last report card around in your purse. Most school districts need proof of legal residency (notice I didn’t say “citizenship” because LEGAL migrant worker’s children are legal residents, but not citizens yet) and the kid’s immunization records prior to enrolling kids in school.
As for what the kids should carry on them-their school ID is fine because it establishes residency as explained in my 1st paragraph.
Sonya,
AZ offers a state issued non-driver ID; you are dumb to not have made a copy of your daughter’s old passport and birth certificate before mailing them off to the State Department. As a functioning adult in this world, I carry proof of my “residency” at all times.
In reply to Tom, my children do not have any ID except for a passport, which normally stays locked at home except for foreign travel. Right now my daughter does not even have that, since the old passport has been sent off in order to be renewed. Exactly what ID should someone who does not drive or travel abroad have on them at all times?
I’ve loved most of this discussion–i.e., the parts that have stay on-topic and cited sources.
Sonya, may I suggest an ID card for your children? You’ll need to wait for your daughter’s documents to come back, of course. (Not making a value judgement on the law as good or bad here, just a suggestion that will allow your children to not have to carry around birth certs or passports. And obviously making your kids carry ID is burdensome and obnoxious.)
As to the larger debate–and I’d love to keep this legal, not ethical–, providing proof of citizenship gets a suspect off the hook, sure; but it isn’t required. What is required is verification. Essentially, the law says: the cops have to verify citizenship before release. BUT if you prove citizenship in one of the following ways, you’re free to go.”
BUT!! Where this still leaves us is verification. If (and I’ll take Marc’s or Packetguy’s or whoever said this’ word on the matter) you as a citizen are required to give no more than a name (if not driving) when questioned by police:
–> HOW DO THE COPS VERIFY YOUR LEGAL STATUS? Short of a search of your effects for an ID (a 4th Am. search, to be sure), if all they can legally get out of a recalcitrant suspect is a name, GOOD LUCK VERIFYING. I guess if your name is Platypus. Q. Lemonade, a name might be enough to search the relevant database. But if it’s John (or Juan) Jones…well..hmm.
–> Search DL database for picture: if you dont give state of residence, tho, that will be a LONG search..and way too cumbersome for LE..
–> If you don’t have a DL/have never had your photo put into a gov’t database (like, say, if you’re 15) then I think you’re basically stuck, because I don’t think Gov’t will be able to ID you. Perhaps they can book you, and then ask you more questions while you’re being booked (as those questions aren’t governed by interrogation rules, to my knowledge)….but that means the REMEDY FOR A 15 YEAR OLD US CITIZEN w/ NO ID WHO DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING BUT IS NAME IS ARREST AND BOOKING AT BEST (if booking questions provide enough info for ID), AND BEING HELD FOR A WHILE AT WORST.
SO….under this analysis, it does seem like Sonya’s kids are in danger, BUT ONLY IF THEY STAY SILENT. However, since silence is a right…I might have to side with Marc/Packetguy on this law being an infringement, even though it would only infringe in limited cases.
Thus, not legally, but PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, I agree that the law in some cases basically forces the suspect to give information to the cops.
Thoughts on this analysis, please?
@mcfadden w/o sweating the details (eg once arrested Miranda applies) you did a reasonable summary.
Practically speaking, where things get ugly are where LE is seen as intrusive and obnoxious, whch of course is often based on LE’s perception of the population, and round n round. I personally bristle when a officer approaches and the first thing out of his mouth is “ID please” though I understand the reason for the request. I was harrassed not so long ago and tcketed for a moving violation that did not take place because my vehicle was on a list (no plates or VIN of course.) It was not until I mentioned the incident to an LE friend that he chuckled and apologized for his brother officer and explained what was going on. But I am a white male member of the Bar; a Polynesian friend was thrown in the slammer on much more flimsy pretext. I am not suggesting all LEOs are bad, but some are and some just get caught up in the war mentality-it is a dangerous and thankless job. So it behooves us NOT to put cops in inappropriate situations, situations such as arguably forced on them by this statute
As far as Victor’s posts regarding what anyone had to say about anything, I simply suggest that the reader go to the primary source.
Re the suggestion that I for one am a dupe of anyone, I actually do taken in Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck and Dobbs (before he left) and I also enjoyed watching Olberman and Maddow not to mention Stewart make fools of them, not because of where I stand on the political spectrum, but because they are morons (just ask Will, Frum & Buchanan-lol). Frankly, anyone who thinks Beck and his staff are geniuses probably skipped more than a few classes; there are too many others making that point to give argument based on the claim that Obama is a racist socialist demagogue any substantive consideration.
In a very real sense folk in US dispute Hohfeld’s argument re correlatives in claiming that we have rights but no correlative duties. While obviously an over generalization, Canadians are much more respectful of the duty owed by which they obtain any right. From a law and society perspective, that is often the basis for admiration of American brashness, and also a reason for others to deplore our hubris. We are entangled in this wild west/Puritan dialectic fantasy and I think have lost our way
I had some time so found URL for case Victor misrepresented:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873
And apparently Alfred appears to have ignored the fact that I am not a Democrat and that AZ is being sued by it’s own metropoli over the statute. He apparently would join with Mr Cheney who may yet be called to stand trial in Spain for war crimes in denouncing the Pauls, who are certainly not Democrats. This is not about partisan politics but about repudiating arrogance and ignorance.
A delayed and perhaps not helpful response to Sonya’s questions: If she is a resident of Arizona, she should notice that one of the acceptable IDs is a “valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.” I found a reference to that at http://law.justia.com/arizona/codes/title28/03165.html .
The “nonoperating” ID is for anyone who does not have a driver’s license or whose driver’s license is suspended. Would that apply to her daughter? Maybe. I saw it a pdf from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that recommends against a Permanent Legal Resident (Sonya) carrying a passport around; the green card would do. I could not find anything in that US CIS document that speaks to the status of children, other than a reference to the children of Conditional Residents. (I suspect that Sonya consulted the same document.)
I am not aware of a similar nonoperating license in other states. A good question for Arizonans or lawyers: Why does Arizona provide such an ID license, anyway, for someone to use for identification purposes? (My surmise on that is worth zero.) Do other states have similar special IDs?
If Sonya is a resident of Arizona, one assumes that some resource is available to respond to her concern. Most Americans and their government representatives are delighted to help someone like Sonya, especially given her caring attitude toward her daughter.
I have read news reports of suits from Tucson and Flagstaffs. Reported remarks of the mayor of Tucson indicate that he misunderstands the law’s key provision, which limits status inquiries to “lawful stops, detention and arrests.” Thanks in part to bad reporting from the AP and the New York Times, many people do not understand that the law restricts inquiries. Nor has the reporting done a good job of explaining why the law was written and passed.
The arrogance re: the law comes from those, e.g., the President, who assail it without bothering to read it or to reach fair and reasoned conclusions from its text. And the ignorance comes from those who do not want to recognize the extent of Arizona’s problems or the limitations of this law, which, effectively, requires Arizona’s police officers to enforce U.S. law. Why is it wrong to enforce U.S. law? And one of the people who worked on the law is a former chief advisor to a President of the United States, on federal immigration law. I suspect he has a clue as to what the state can and cannot do in a field in which he has some knowledge.
I will cut out long responses to some other remarks. But Glenn Beck good. Barack Obama bad. Evidence abounds for both conclusions.
[...] – I hadn’t yet read the law. I finally read it in its entirety. You can find it here. The website I linked to is a great place to read it, because the site explains what was already [...]
We needs a national ID for every U.S. citizen. If no card, you probably should’t be here.
Paul well written posts. But my friend I think you are wasting you time trying to convince these people what the letter of the law actually says. Their minds are made up and don’t confuse them with the facts.
I have noticed in many of these arguements that the term “racial profiling” is brought up. Racial profiling is NOT illegal. It is done, and for GOOD cause, EVERY DAY, and SHOULD be done, and to ANYONE who disagrees, I bet I can change your mind.
Suppose you are robbed at gun point by a white male, 6 feet tall, blond hair and blue eyes. You call the police, and report the crime. Now, if you are as AGAINST racial profiling as you say, you should then expect the police to investigate and arrest ALL males, regardless of race, because to only arrest WHITE males, would be racial profiling.
Also, those of you concerned that the WHITE officers in, say, Pheonix, will run wild arresting Mexicans, consider also that SIXTY PERCENT of the law enforcement in Arizona is latino.
I only wish California had the guts and intelligence to pass a similar law. We need one.
[...] Full text of the new Arizona anti-Illegal Immigration law everyone’s been talking about. [...]
Since the law was revised by the original drafters to replace “lawful contact” with “stop, detention, or arrest,” I find a lot less to object to. A “lawful contact” lets LE walk up to anyone and demand written identification. However, there are still serious issues. Unlike Bob, who cheerfully will give up his right to walk around without ID and be subject to erosion of his personal liberties, I’m not willing to accept that not having ID on me when just walking around automatically makes me a criminal subject to detention. The law, as it stands, PRESUMES me guilty for not having ID, since the only presumption stated for citizenship is to show ID. Reasonable suspicion, which is all this law requires, is not probably cause, which is the standard for every other arrest. Bob can’t envision a circumstance where this could be use against him, but I can, and I’ve seen LE abuse their power with legislation like this. Where I live, the local police got a special “gang enforcement injunction” passed that makes it a crime for any gang member to be out after a 10PM curfew, or to wear certain gang clothing (such as sports team logos), or to congregate in certain areas.
This is very congruent with the AZ law, since LE can’t tell who the law applies to without stopping them. I’ve been stopped about numerous times over the last several years, and in each case LE attempted an illegal search of my person (when walking), my car, or a field sobriety test to try and gather evidence to detain me. I work with LE, and I understand that is the nature of the job: you use every tool granted to intervene as much as possible, in the hopes of catching a crook. LE does not consider constitutional aspects of the laws they enforce, assuming that the legislature did that when they passed the law.
The upshot is that this single injunction, which is supposed to be a temporary law, has caused serious delay and inconvenience to me, has soured my relationship with LE where I live (as opposed to where I work, in another city), and has resulted in a number of mistaken arrests and outright harassment. I can tell Bob that it’s no fun living in a police state, and that’s what he’ll have if more changed aren’t made to this law to prevent LE from using it to arrest people without probably cause.
For some reason, when I type “probable cause”, my spell checker changes it to “probably cause” unless I notice and go back to fix it. So please substitute “probable cause” for “probably cause” in my post above.
Bob…
I don’t drive. Therefore, I have no necessity to carry a “driver’s license”. I live in a metro area with good public transportation and I ride my bike most places. I go to the bank once every week on pay day. I take my ID with me when I need it. You assume everyone commutes in the same manner. The HOLY driver’s license. We all lead different lives, yet the law applies to all of us the same. Why should I HAVE to carry my identification on me if I choose not to. Why is ok for the government to tell me I HAVE to identify myself. I don’t pay taxes to be hounded by the people I pay to protect me.
See, I can walk around town running my errands, go to the park, post office, the grocery store (I use cash, I know…old school.), all without my ID. Now, in Arizona, I could be stopped for any reason (j-walking if a cop was really feelin’ the law), even for leaving Home Depot with a friend and giving the peace sign to a buddy in his car we see and he returns the sign.
“13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions”
Sounds ridiculous, right? “C’mon, man, getting approached by the cops for saying ‘what’s up’ to your friend?”
No…this…is ridiculous:
“G. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
1. “SOLICIT” MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.”
THAT is potential grounds for probable cause. All for just wanting to pick up a new drill and cup of coffee at my friendly, mom and pop hardware store and seeing an old friend.
If I don’t have a way to prove that I’m legal, even if I’ve lived here for 32 years, my entire life…they take me in. How do you determine who is involved in suspicious, illegal-immigrant behavior in a border town/state? Answer: The color of their skin.
How…HOW, can anyone in this country, with all of our supposed freedom, support such a heavy-handed, racist, fascist set of laws?
By the way robert,
The example you used of being robbed at gunpoint and the authorities searching for the described suspect is NOT racial profiling. AND it’s a terrible comparison. We’re not talking about violent offenders, necessarily. Realistically, we’re talking more about traffic stops. If you pull someone over because they have 5 hispanic people as passengers based on an assumption they are illegal, THAT is racial profiling. And now, with these laws, that could be considered probable cause.
That not the America, I know.
Craig,
“We’re not talking about violent offenders”
That is EXACTLY what we’re talking about here! Coyotes, drug dealers, (and probably some occasional Islamic terrorists exploiting our weakness) who shoot farmers, cops, cows. You don’t call that violent? Phoenix is 2nd in the NATION for kidnappings. What the heck do you mean “not talking about violent offenders”???
“If you pull someone over because they have 5 hispanic people as passengers based on an assumption they are illegal, THAT is racial profiling. And now, with these laws, that could be considered probable cause.”
Thank God that exact thing is very specifically prohibited in the law…
Cops can’t just “pull someone over because they have 5 hispanic people in their car.” You see, it is not against the law in Arizona to be driving around with “5 hispanic people” in your car. If they did, they would face civil suits. If I am wrong, please cite the section of the Vehicle Code which states such.
However, if the car makes an illegal U-turn, or has a burned-out tail light, then the cop has every legal right to pull the car over.
Read the law please…
That happened to a group of my friends IN Arizona. They committed no offense. The car was in proper working order. My friend is a mechanic, a damn fine one I might add. They are always doing what they can to NOT get pulled over because they know they have a greater chance of BEING pulled over. FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES! Always drive the speed limit. ALWAYS stop fully at stop signs. Never run a yellow light, let alone a red. Check the car light’s every day before leaving work. THIS IS HAPPENING! American citizens living in fear in their own country because of the mass amount of profiling and harassment that’s already taking place.
You can say all you want about the technicality of the law but the REALITY of what actually happens on the streets is a lot different than what you may have been exposed to or assume to be reality.
Are you a brown skinned man?
Have you ever been unlawfully pulled over by the POLICE?
Have you ever tried to file a grievance with the state to complain of on incident involving the authorities that supposedly protect us and been blown off?
Have you ever tried to go to the newspaper and tell them about a specific incident involving unlawful execution of local, state and federal law and never heard a word back?
These laws open further the right of law enforcement to openly harass anyone and detain them until they figure out who they are. How long would it take to be identified by ICE or a border patrol agent?? How long? I really want to know the answer to that question if you happen to know.
I’m giving you a real life example of what’s ALREADY wrong with the system. Something YOU may not necessarily see every day. Law Enforcement doesn’t always properly enforce the law. THAT is reality. And when authority is given more power, that power breeds more corruption.
This is just the beginning. Does the law stop here? What next?
Wake up and see what’s happening in the world outside of your computer box or your desk.
Craig,
“How long would it take to be identified by ICE or a border patrol agent?? How long? I really want to know the answer to that question if you happen to know.”
A few hours….
“…the process followed at field stations are similar to those practiced in the booking of criminals in smaller police stations.
‘[Suspected illegal immigrants] are booked just like they would be in a police station: fingerprinted, photographed, and interviewed, Counts said.
He suggested The Nation may have stretched the facts for the benefit of readers. Take the amount of time detainees are held in ICE field stations, Counts said.
‘After reading The Nation article, how long do you think detainees are normally held in the field stations?’ He said on average detainees are held in the facilities for two or three hours at the most before being transferred to local jails.
He said detainees are provided telephone access in all of the offices, provided the opportunity to speak with the consular officials from their home countries and given a list of free or low-cost legal assistance in the area.”
Source:
http://www.coloradoimmigrant.org/article.php?id=561
As far as asking me if I have been ever pulled-over by the police, yes, I am routinely pulled over about 6 or 8 times a year based on the vehicle I drive. As soon as I hit the exit ramp or shoulder, I grab my logbook, registration, bills of lading, and meet the officer on the right side of my vehicle and ask him why I was pulled over. They usually reply by citing some nonsense about a torn mudflap (barley legal, but reasonable cause nonetheless), one of the 18 tires with marginal tread (barely legal, but probable cause nonetheless), and much more. I know they are doing it strictly to look at my logbook (per Federal law that says I must have one and it must be current). As soon as they are done looking at it, I ask them what other probable cause they have, and most of them usually groan and just tell me to be careful. In addition, my vehicle is inspected by State Police at least 3 or 4 times a year.
Yes, I know my rights and I cherish every one of them, but I also know what federal regulations cover my job (the FMCSA Regulations), and I comply with all of them. Without federal regulations, the skies would be dangerous, and the highways would be killing fields.
Without federal immigration laws, we would be a nation of outlaws, coyotes, and drug smugglers. Oh wait… That’s already happening in the bottom 100 miles of Arizona and Texas parallel to the Mexican border. Border Patrol are being shot and killed, ranchers and their families are being shot, killed and kidnapped, drugs are flowing in like Niagara Falls, and I am confident that some parts for Nukes and/or bio-bombs have been smuggled in (can you actually see what’s inside each and every one those 41,000 knapsacks and duffel bags that come across every month? 500,000 illegals/yr breaking our immigration laws = over 41,000 per month)
What I see here is everyone wants to criticize existing federal law, yet nobody wants to post their alternative to our country being invaded. Yes, 18 million lawbreakers is considered an invasion. Yes, I’m pissed. The past 5 presidents have done nothing to seal our borders. Nothing. 17 miles of fence. Big deal… 17 miles… Prosecuting Border Patrol Agents who risk their lives, instead of prosecuting everyone who has broken our laws and who do not respect our sovereignty.
Instead of arguing with all of you, I would like to see alternate solution posted here. If you don’t like the fact that Arizona is desperate to protect its citizens, then do something about it. I think “military maneuvers” along the border would do the trick, since the coyotes can usually out-gun the ICE agents. The maneuvers do not violate Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the use of troops for domestic law enforcement. Border security is not domestic law enforcement. It is protecting our nation from foreign intruders or an invasion. In fact, the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
Source:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/060713
Anyone else want to offer up something?… C’mon… Quit your bitching and let’s see YOUR plan…
What we currently have is not working, folks. Should families within 100 miles of the border have to live in constant fear? Well, they do. I’ve heard and seen their actual stories on radio and TV. I’ve seen the hundreds of water bottles that litter their private property everywhere on their ranches. I’ve seen their cows shot and butchered. I’ve seen the remains of their chickens that were stolen and cooked and their pigs that were stolen and cooked. Cars are broken into, hot-wired, and then stolen. Clothes hanging on a clothesline are stolen. This is 70 miles from the border!!! Would you like to live in a lawless area like that, or would you like to live where you can safely play with your kids outside your house?
Let’s hear your plan, people… Put up or shut up.
p.s. you’re a paranoid xenophobe.
Craig,
Before I reply, I would like to preface by saying I used to be a Liberal. In fact, I was a Liberal most of my life. When they slid waaaaaay to the Left, they abandoned their base, including me. Since then, Conservative values have opened my eyes. I like my money, and I do think that I can spend it better than the government can. In fact, the fed is broke and I’m not… I do not want to give the government most of my hard-earned in exchange for the “priviledge” of having the government be my nanny from cradle to grave. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
====================
I do not remember who said this, but it is one of my favorite sayings:
“When liberals have no facts, they will usually resort to personal attacks”.
I am a paranoid xenophobe? Really?… My Italian wife would disagree with you. (Yes, she’s a immigrant)
Haven’t you seen these images on TV or heard these ranchers on PBS or some other station? I have a Sirius radio in my truck, so I listen to about 10-12 hours of every kind of radio broadcast imaginable. I watch news and even the Sunday so-called “news” shows. I hear a very broad range of views. And before you post it, no, I do not listen to Rush all day, everyday. He is not on Sirius (or XM). I scan and see what’s on. If it sounds like a good debate, I listen, and I consider myself to be more informed than the average Joe. I’m not an expert, but, rather, an elevated level of knowledge of current events by hearing views from both sides. That way, I am free to decide instead of having some reporter telling me what I should believe.
Have a nice day, unless you are offended by that statement. If so, then have a lousy day instead. That covers both bases…
Well Bob, you can be as loud as often as you wish, it doesn’t make you any more accurate, any more logical, nor any more intelligible. Your snippy remarks about cites is rather ridiculous in that the more cites I try to add to my posts the more this site blocks my posting, so I gave up providing all sources, especially as they are easy to find. And while your ability to take data and argument out of context is nonpareil, such conduct does not promote rational discourse, so at the end of the day you are, in a sense, yelling at yourself about how foolish the rest of the world is. Good luck with that.
However, if I can get this site to accept one cite, here is an analysis of reversals of 9th Circuit cases as compared to other circuits.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016 whatever Posner’s claims of a decade ago. As a member of the bar of that circuit, I can tell you that quite a few of the reversals we have seen are reversals of opinions by conservative judges appointed by Bush and that members of the Circuit attribute reversals to the size of the Court. In any case, when wonders why epople like you are not going apoplectic over Circuits that have had 100% of their cases reversed as opposed to the ~75% averaged by the 9th Circuit.
In any event, the Supreme Court in its last term had a chance to make a sweeping statement that would have signaled its intent to overturn Kolender, but it specifically chose NOT to do that in language that arguably confirmed the 9th Circuit’s position. When you are admitted to the 9th Circuit’s bar to argue the case please advise as I will fly in to watch the argument….. but then again, your comments suggest that you have an issue with lawyers- so maybe you would rather move to some country that does not have lawyers, as our lawyers are fundamental to our form of government, and, lest we forget, do their clients’ bidding.
You can castigate the rest of the world all you wish, but as noted by quite a few people who are members of the GOP, are employed in the justice system, and have read the legistaion and understand the implications thereof, this is not about politics, this is not about the “liberal” media (whatever myth you are mouthing about whatever that is) or about communists trying to take over your country (the GOP got its start supporting unions and all manner of “socialist” schemes, lol.)
This is bad legislation. Yes, there have been efforts to make it less bad, but for a myriad of reasons they fall short, leaving the statute a political statement largely by angry old white people. Does that make it racist? Maybe, maybe not, but it is bad legislation, whether it is racially motivated (I am guessing in part by some) and could be racially exploited (and yes, it could be abused for such purposes) or not.
And yes, the US does not have clean hands with respect to acquisition of lands southwest of the Louisiana Purchase. That does not make illegal immigration “right”, but it is cause for some amusement. If you can’t see the humor than you are truly myopic and maybe should emigrate to somewhere more to your liking. Your people are obviously not from this continent…….
As far as ER data, info from one ER does not translate to national treatment rates in Hospital Emergency Departments, though they may make for great headlines. Anyone who can’t find CDC or HCUP data really isn’t trying very hard.
Frankly, I am tempted to support a “purity” law that would require everyone in AZ to produce documentation of legal entry into this country or else be deported. Afterall, as I have have records of my family’s lawful entrance, what did is it to me if anyone else can’t – lol. My guess is that most of those squealing in AZ would be hard pressed to prove lawful entry into this country, “For ’tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard”
Marc,
I looked at your site. The fact right on the page is that the 9th circuit has a winning record of 3-for-16. II i were a coach, I’d pull that player. I do not know why you even brought up those other cirsuits. You diod not mention them, and they willnot hear this case. It is irrelevant.
“…your comments suggest that you have an issue with lawyers…”
No. I said I have a problem with lawyers of questionable ethical character. That is not a blanket statement covering ALL lawyers. I am sure it is a very small percentage, although it should actually be zero. From what I’ve read in your posts, I do not feel you fall within this narrow scope. Go back are re-read my statement, since you missed it the first time around.
I guess I should ask you if you, being of an assumed sound legal and ethical background, would truly tell somebody who didn’t burn herself once, didn’t burn herself twice, but burned herself thrice, that she is a “victim” and should sue McDonald”s for $4M? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. Or would you tell her she’s got an “entitlement” mentality and to seek counsel elsewhere?
By the way, the award for the obviously clumsy lady, er, uh I mean “victim”, was substantially lowered upon appeal. If I were a pimple-faced kid working the counter when she came in the 3rd time, I think I would have told her that perhaps coffee and her did not agree, and I would have suggested the orange juice hence. If I were on the jury, I would have laughed aloud in the jury room after the facts were all presented.
Burned herself 3 times… LOL…
You know, I am NOT anti-immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigration. I’m getting tired of figuratively wasting my breath trying to convince most of you that we need to do something and we need to do it now. None of you have bothered to offer your own plan. I put my money where my mouth is, however, in a previous post. Instead of bitching about it, let’s hear your perfect plan…
If you say to go after the employers-sorry. It was copied from the Federal law into the AZ state statute that you so despise. If you say build a fence, the funding is there, but only 17 miles have been built. If you say let them stay, the why would you want to reward illegal behavior? It’s been tried twice and we see how well that worked-out. If you really want to let them stay, then I guess we can also give pot growers a pardon, too, while we’re at it because the are only trying to make enough money to feed their families- just like the illegal invaders (most of whom do not pay Fed income tax or state income tax or SSA tax on their income). If you say hire more Border Patrol, I’ve addressed that issue by using military instead (why speed-up our impending bankruptcy by hiring even more taxpayer-paid government employees when we already have a taxpayer-paid army who can instantly stop the problem tomorrow?)
Last year, ICE Arrested about 250,000 fence-jumping lawbreakers and shipped them back to get in line and immigrate the right way (like my wife did). The Federal law has been on the books for over 2 decades and has now spanned 5 president’s terms. Those of you who can’t fathom the concept that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and NOT Arizona Law Enforcement Officials are the ones who will be detaining these illegal invaders and drug smugglers should understand one thing: The people featured in these 2 short videos could be your future next door neighbors.
So, take 7 minutes out of your day to meet your new neighbors. Maybe you can even offer them a beer and some BBQ pork. Oops! My bad. They don’t eat pork…
Think it’s just a Southwestern problem? Think again…
Watch both parts: Part 1 (3:06) and Part 2 (3:51)
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
Bob
For those who chose to read neither the actual arizona law or the federal law regarding the right to stop illegals based on ‘reasonable suspicion’:
Thus, it has now been held that persons may not be stopped and questioned on the street by immigration officers absent a reasonable suspicion that they are aliens. See Lee v. INS, 590 F.2d 497 (3 Cir.1979); Cordon de Ruano v. INS, 554 F.2d 944, 946 (9 Cir.1977); Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 548 F.2d 715 (7 Cir.1977) (order entered upon hearing en banc), modifying, 540 F.2d 1062 (7 Cir.1976); Au Yi Lau v. INS, 445 F.2d 217 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864 (1971). But see Marquez v. Kiley, 436 F.Supp. 100 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
Seems the law has no disfavor with this concept.
to the comment about no law requires carrying an ID, once again not reading the law does not mean there is no such law. Au contrare, all non citizens are required to carry identification.
Who wants the president to intervene? Hell all i want is for him to enforce the existing law. He certainly knows how to get involved in things most people don’t care about.
Bob,
I love your debate tactic of not recognizing any part of an opponents argument that questions your viewpoint. A true American. Don’t give an inch. Your opinion is the only opinion.
And your wife. That came legally. From Italy.
Are you seriously comparing a mostly safe and peaceful country in Europe to a violence-ridden, drug-cartel controlled country that borders a “free” country.
The REASON people are trying to get into this country is to get out of the HELL that surrounds them. Did you book a vacation to Juarez with all of your hard earned American money. There’s also a few less Italian immigrants applying for green cards in the USA because their country isn’t permanently engulfed in turmoil.
The line happens to be a lot longer from Mexico than Italy, Bob.
And you never answered my question of how long it would take to be identified by and authorized Immigration officer or ICE agent after the initial confrontation?
You never want to have a true debate. You couldn’t even comment on the story I gave you about my friends unlawfully pulled over as a result of racial profiling and racism.
I don’t care if you used to be a liberal, they’re just as delusional as the conservatives.
Xenophobes aren’t afraid of all immigrants, just the one’s they don’t like.
Comparing Italy to Mexico…unbelievable.
Craig,
“And you never answered my question of how long it would take to be identified by and authorized Immigration officer or ICE agent after the initial confrontation?”
Ahh, but I did answer you… I’m not going to re-paste so I won’t have to be redundant. You can simply re-read my post and see for yourself.
So, if we do as you propose and just allow (without any recourse or verification of a person’s identity) unregulated border crossings to any group of people whose “country [is] permanently engulfed in turmoil”, then we would the official dumping point for taking in Chinese by the billions, 3-4 million Somalians, 2 million Angolans, 750,000 Ethopians, 3 million Iranians, a couple of million Cubans, and about a million or so Haitians thrown in for good measure. Do you have the same empathy for them, or are you only partial to illegal fence-jumpers and drug smugglers? Their countries are in turmoil, too.
We simply cannot do what you desire. In order to maintain some semblance of control over our country, Immigration issues a certain number of visas every year. These illegal invaders are flipping you and me off every day by not obtaining one. There are also terrorists (who are very wise and exploit our weaknesses) who go to Mexico and learn to speak “Mexican” (FYI: they do not speak proper Spanish, they speak “Mexican”, which is a far cry from true Spanish which is spoken in Cuba and Spain).
If you doubt a terrorist could possibly ever come to your town, then watch parts 1 and two of this troubling news report:
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
If Immigration didn’t regulate the number of travel, work, and residency visas every year, it would descend the US into chaos, which is already materializing within 100 miles of our southern border. Funny thing, but you don’t see kidnappings, shootings, butchered rancher’s cows, thousands of water bottles and knapsacks (which could have been carrying anything ranging from food supplies to drugs to a terrorist’s bio-bomb or nuke parts) anywhere along our norther border. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because they are, for the most part, doing the the right way up north, and obtaining visas. Yes, there are arrests up there, too, but not even close to the 250,000 annual arrests on our southern border.
Your premise that a country “is in turmoil” does not lend credence to your longing to give them unbridled permission to break our laws or not respect our borders by literally invading our sovereign nation. Period. (Yes, 20 million unauthorized armed people crossing our border is considered an invasion by any standard) Another country “in turmoil” has several legal avenues for their citizens to apply (I SAID APPLY!!!) for legal asylum status. Obama’s mother is one such recent example. She was here illegally, but a court recently granted her political asylum. Breaking the law simply won’t cut it with me as a flimsy excuse to get unskilled tax burdens (and hospital budget-busters) into our country. They must do it legally.
I want to ask you something. Do you think it is fair to the LEGAL immigrant workers who did it the right way? How do you think they feel about the 20 million illegal invaders who bypassed the “the line” while the LEGAL ones waited behind and did it the right way?
You are getting me all wrong. I am not opposed to immigration. I am opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. All I am saying is the these invaders do it legally, just like everyone else who has a green card has done.
As for my wife — she did it the right way, and she had to wait about 3 years to do it, but she did it completely legally. She has been a US citizen for over 40 years now. Actually, there was quite a bit of turmoil in Italy during the 60′s. Read your history books, unless they’ve made them politically-correct nowadays and omitted the facts about that era. My wife’s family is from Milan (Milano) in Northern Italy near the Alps. They finally got to leave in 1969 after anarchists (terrorists of another name) had pretty-much taken over the town, controlled the police department, and eventually bombed a bank, killing about 20 people and injuring about 100 more. Sure Italy is nice now, but it was in turmoil and much different today than when my wife and her family left. So much for your “their country isn’t permanently engulfed in turmoil” argument. Italy was engulfed in turmoil for over 30 years following its collapse after WW II. Maybe you didn’t hear about it in your history classes… Please leave my wife out of this argument. I used her only as an example of the right way (and legal way) to enter our sovereign country.
Finally, I would like to point out that unless you wave to your buddy and he jumps into your car to go to a jobsite, then neither you nor him has broken a law by you simply “waving” at him. There are 2 flaws in your logic. First, if you are in the parking lot because you just “bought a drill”, then you have not violated the law, because it specifically states in Section 5, Part 1 that you cannot stop on a street:
“It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped
34 on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up
35 passengers for work”
A parking lot is not a street…
Secondly, you are not waving or gesturing to hire your friend. You are “saying ‘what’s up’ to your friend” as you put it. Unless “What’s up” is a secret code word for “Hey- Do you want to illegally work for me today”, then your argument has no basis. The law specifically says in Section 5, Part G:
G. For the purposes of this section:
14 1. “Solicit” means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a
15 nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be
16 employed.
Keywords: “Willing to be employed”. How do you go from “saying ‘what’s up’ to your friend?” to be “willing to be employed?” That takes quite a bit of imagination to stretch the law that far. Besides, if you have the drill in your hand, receipt in the bag, and your friend has his car in the parking lot, then there is absolutely no probable cause. You are desperately grasping at thin air. Go ahead. Hide a camera in your car, then go meet your friend at Lowe’s using the scenario you created and record what happens. You will be waiting a long time for any results. Let me know what happens. In fact, post it on YouTube so the entire country can share your outrage. Heck, Al Sharpton might come to your defense, maybe even Jesse Jackson or the ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Undergound). *falls off chair laughing*
You and I both know darn well that the usual deal is that some dude who wants to break our “right to work” laws will drive to Lowe’s and look for the group of illegal immigrants standing out by the curb. He will stop his pickup on the street and wave at about 2 or 3 guys to get them to come over and jump into the back of his pickup truck. He then goes off and breaks our labor laws by allowing them to work with out the required SS card and proof of citizenship, as required by the Fed Law. I am confident that the guy in the pickup truck will not be issuing a 1099 form to his “workers”.
The law does not say a darn thing about buying a drill, having some coffee with your buddy or saying/waving ‘what’s up’ to your friend.” You are illustrating a desperate and unlikely scenario. The cops will not be looking for people who are waving at their friends. They will be looking for employers who are breaking the law and for illegal invaders who are breaking the law. You and I both know that. C’mon, get real…
Every LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) is required upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to initiate a ‘Terry Stop’. Once the ‘Stop’ is initiated depending on any answers and observations of the seasoned LEO, the reasonable suspicion may lead to Probable cause, etc… Should that probable cause lead to an arrest wherein a person’s identity comes into question, every LEO is required to investigate that person to identify him/her. Besides being the LEO’s Duty, this is common sense. If it should be established that the person stopped may or may not be an undocumented alien, the person is taken into custody, and a request through either computer or via telephone is sent to Immigration and Customs Enfofcement who makes the determination as to the status of the alien. The alien is either relkeased with a court date or arrested for illegal entry if there is no record based on an existing Federal Law. A detainor is sent by immigration to the local LEO by the Federal Agency or ICE should the Alien need further investigation, or an ICE Agent is dispatched to the local LEO’s location. This goes on in every state in the United States. It is nothing new. Also the Embassy of the Illegal Alien is normally called and informed of the arrest, at least that is my agency’s policy. Again, every State does this, or is supposed to do this according to Federal Law. Arizona put it in writing, so what. If you think local LEO’s have time to go around and just stop people for no reason than wake up carry some id; should you get stopped, as I have on numerous occasions, show your ID which takes all of about 20 seconds and move on with your life. I somehow got placed on the TSA list and get stopped at the airport whenever I leave Mexico and enter the United States and I am an LEO. I’d rather be stopped and cleared than someone get by. It’s really not that big a deal. I’ve been stopped in Canada, Jamaica, etc… because of how I look, so what!! I am legal. I am a LEO. I welcome the thousands of immigrants from whatever country that enter our country legally. For those that do not, you should be stopped, and made to do it the correct way, or go back and wait your turn like my ancestors had to do.
What people seem to miss in these arguments, is the federal government is not simply incompetent in protecting our borders, but then, magically 100% competent in processing legal immigration – but they are in fact, incompetent in both spheres.
The U.S.C.I.S. status that Arizona is checking, was never meant to be a status you could enforce. So when you say they weren’t enforcing it, DING DING DING, you are right. If it was enforceable it would have been designed in a completely different way.
Let me explain, say you bring your fiance over from Canada on a K-1 Visa, she comes into the country on a 90-day Visa, during that time you are required to get married, and then submit a ‘change of status’ going from a non-immigrant visa to an intending immmigrant. If that 90 day period expires, without U.S.C.I.S. acting to send you a new 2 year temporary ‘permanent’ resident card, guess what, you are out of status.
U.S.C.I.S. will send you a letter advising you to stay in the country. If you leave the country during this phase without permission, you have violated the rules and will have your application denied. You must stay in the country, not leave.
Meanwhile you are ‘out of status’ until the paperwork snafu is cleared. So along comes Arizona and uses these status to determine you are ‘illegal’.
Sorry, but the fact that these statuses were not enforced by the Federal government, is the entire point. They never had to do a status system that could be used at this level, for this purpose.
And its not clear that Arizona can force the Federal government and the other 49 states, to use a new system.
This system is a disaster, except, since its really about racism, we are all assured ‘don’t worry’ it won’t be applied to your fiance from Canada…and, yes, that is probably true.
Long time no hear. I commented back on page one two and three, that the AZ law was absolutely legal because it resembled the Federal law, but had less teeth. After hearing from an array of “know it all” pompous attorney’s gave lame reasons as to why it was not, I’m chiming back in with another LANDMARK UNANIMOUS 9-0 DECISION.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423 chomp on this Liberal ACLU wannabees.
What you guys should be up in arms about is the sanctuary city policies that are in direct conflict of Federal law.
Okay Victor exactly what does this have to do with the new AZ law.
How is this “landmark case” relevant.
They were serving a Search warrant! They had the right to detain her in handcuffs and determine who she was.
Now if the AZ law require detention and reasonable cause instead of lawful stop and reasonable suspicion I don’t think anyone would have said a word.
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously sided with LEO’s asking someone for ID if they have “Reasonable suspicion” (San Clemente, Ca.) for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/jan-brewer/arizona-immigration-law-rewrite-lays-rest-worries-/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873
The AZ. Law does require detention, Blazen, read the law. They can’t walk up to you and ask for your ID/Papers. The Law allows LEO’s, during a legitimate detainment, to ask for ID/papers if they have reasonable suspicion, provided the “reasonable suspicion” is not due to race. The Law actually specifies that racial discrimination CANNOT be used. By specifying that in the law, it makes it even easier for Lawyers to reach a settlement if racial discrimination were a factor in the detention.
Victor,
I need to make a small correction to your great post. Although the AZ law does require detention, the detention is not done by AZ LEOs, it’s done by ICE. The legal code delegating them to do that is in the AZ law, but it is ICE’s responsibility to actually do it. I am also glad you mentioned to Blazen, “…provided the ‘reasonable suspicion’ is not due to race”, because that allows for a civil suit jackpot to anyone who is questioned strictly due to race.
And to Blazen,
“reasonable suspicion” is a legal standard which allows any LEO to conduct a normal field investigation (in an attempt to obtain facts and/or information to clear a suspect), during which the suspect has every legal right to remain silent, except to state his true name, which was affirmed by the SCOTUS in Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The Court’s ruling in Hiibel states in Part III, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is also free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.”
Furthermore, in Terry v Ohio, Justice White stated in a concurring opinion that, “a person detained in an investigative stop can be questioned but is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest… The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.”
Those are Justice White’s words, not mine…
Link to the decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
Finally, someone making sense in these posts. Cheers Bob. Also, to clarify, what I meant by legitimate detainment was detaining someone for a traffic violation, disorderly conduct, stabbing someone, etc., of course after they determine they might also be illegal they are obligated to call ICE.
[...] are saying, cops can’t just grab you and ask: “Are you a citizen or a green card holder?” The statute states [4]: For any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law [...]
IF you are DRIVING, you are required by law to carry and present a valid, current drivers license, or CDL if you happen to have a communist drivers license for a 2nd division vehicle!
If you wish to cash a check, they require a drivers license or other valid Identification – if you jumped the fence, and don’t like our laws – jump back over the fence – why is it the ones that ARE illegal feel they have rights to demand anything, here? GO HOME – go fly your Mexican flag IN Mexico, make your protest sign in English, dummy – NOT Spanish! MAYBE some one MIGHT care or even read it!
The real social issue here is, instead of Obama siding with illegals or Muslims, what a great president would have done in both cases is take a higher road by asking legal immigrants to help us with this epidemic of 12 million illegals in our country, by either turning them in, or by gladly cooperating with police if you are being questioned about your own status. Also, stress that policies all over the U.S. will remind LEO’s to approach with extreme courteousness and a smile as well.
Same with Muslims in airports, if the president took the side of asking them as Americans to help the USA by showing tolerance when being questioned by police and guaranteeing the police will do the same. If both parties approach the situation with a smile, then e would avoid the conflicts that have been rising.
WHAT PART OF “ILLEGAL ALIENS” DON’T YOU GET ???
Tom and Fred,
You know that not a single government, no matter the political structure, has yet ventured to undertake a serious inquiry into the position of the working stiff. But what a number of investigations have been undertaken into crises — agricultural, financial, industrial, commercial, political!
The exploitation of the American taxpayer imposed through TARP and PPIP and other mammoth government spending sprees in this country have forced the US taxpayer to wonder about what an impartial and systematic investigation of governmental skullduggery might uncover. In the hope that maybe we can induce our republican government to organize a far reaching investigation into facts and crimes of our government’s exploitation, we are only promoting an inquiry of this kind with the few resources which are at our disposal. You can observe the support of all the legal working people in town and country, in North and South, who understand that they alone can describe with full knowledge the misfortunes from which they suffer and that only they, and not Washington elite, can energetically apply the healing remedies for the ills to which they are prey. We also rely upon people of all races, faiths, credences and political persuasions who, being wishful for the reforms so necessary in the circumstances, must demand an exact and positive knowledge of the conditions in which the the American working men and women — the people to whom the future belongs -work and move.
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), the Supreme Court unanimously sided with LEO’s asking someone for ID if they have “Reasonable suspicion” (San Clemente, Ca.) for questioning people as to their citizenship or immigration status
Yeah in a BORDER ZONE!
I doubt anyone would go so far as to actually believe the intention of the ruling was to give Local civilian law enforcement through out the entire united states the same level of unmitigated authority to anyone at will and ask for papers.
The other thing you missed is “questioning people” not demanding proof of lawful status.
@ Blazen,
I don’t know to whom you were responding, but there are two phrases you mentioned.
“Local civilian law enforcement through out the entire United States the same level of unmitigated authority to anyone at will and ask for papers.”
and
“In a border zone”
Border zone? That’s a good one… Have you been to Columbus, Ohio, lately? There are plenty of illegal invaders residing there. Cleveland. Nashville. Atlanta. Chicago. Kansas City. Denver. Portland. New York City. Peoria. There are over 20, Million invaders in our country, and they aren’t just living in “a border zone”.
Unmitigated authority? At will? Local LEO still doesn’t have that power. In fact, it’s strictly forbidden in the new law. Section B, Part 2 states that there must first be a lawful contact with police. Secondly, ICE, and not LEO, has been delegated the task of determining a person’s immigration status, as per the new law. In addition, CURRENT Federal law (Title 8 USC, Section 1304, subsection (d)) REQUIRES legal immigrants to “carry their papers”- in this case a “green card”- on them at all times. That law was passed in 1986.
The actual Federal code states:
“…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.”
Border patrol and ICE are the only agency who can ask an immigrant to produce their green card without first obtaining a “lawful contact”. They have had that power for over 24 years. AZ cops, however, cannot do that, unless they want to face a civil suit.
You can read the actual 1986 Federal statute here:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1304
“I doubt anyone would go so far as to actually believe???” I stated 2 supreme court rulings that were 9-0 UNANIMOUS DECISIONS. And your come back “I doubt anyone would go so far as to actually believe” You need to stop “Blazen” and come up with something better than that. Both, show that when stopped for a separate possible violation, the LEO has the right to inquire about Citizenship, if he has reasonable suspicion. If someone has a British accent, if they’re wearing a Beret and have French accent. If they are wearing a Burka and have an accent. A reasonable suspicion to inquire about citizenship, WHILE BEING DETAINED/stopped for another violation.
“the LEO has the right to inquire about Citizenship, if he has reasonable suspicion”
Yes they have the right to inquire! But outside a border zone you are under no obligation to provide it! As it would be a direct violation of the 4th amendment And this only applies to federal officers NOT Civilian LEO.
You are misinterpreting the rulings you are referencing. I suggest you reread UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE after you read it take a look at a few legal briefs on the case and see if those interpretation concurs with your’s