Text of New Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214, 28-3511 and 41-1274 (effective July 29, 2010).  This post does not contain the entire text of the new law.  The entire law is contained in this part 4 and in:

23-212.  Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A. [KEYTLaw Comment:  This subsection A is existing Arizona law that is not modified by the new law, but is referred to in the following new provisions. starting with subsection K.]  An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

K.  It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection A of this section that the employer was entrapped.  To claim entrapment, the employer must admit by the employer’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation.  An employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1.  The idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer.
2.  The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.
3.  The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

L.  An employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to violate subsection A of this section and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.  The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment.

23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A.  [KEYTLaw Comment:  This subsection A is existing Arizona law that is not modified by the new law, but is referred to in the following new provisions starting with subsection K.]  An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.  If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

K.  It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection A of this section that the employer was entrapped.  To claim entrapment, the employer must admit by the employer’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation.  An employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1.  The idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer.
2.  The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.
3.  The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

L.  An employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to violate subsection A of this section and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.  The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment.

23-214.  Verification of employment eligibility; e‑verify program; economic development incentives; list of registered employers

A.  After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program [KEYTLaw Comment:  The new law added the following text.] and shall keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.

28-3511.  Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle

A.  [KEYTLaw Comment:  This subsection A is existing Arizona law that is not modified by the new law.  The new law adds new subsection 4.]  A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

4.  The person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to transport, move, conceal, harbor or shield an alien in this state in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

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.

See the text of the entire Senate Bill 1070.