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:
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 1” which contains the text of new ARS Section 11-1051 as revised by House Bill 2162
- “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 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.
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.
I am hispanic, mothers family from Arizona and find nothing offensive or out of place with the Arizona Law. It states that Arizona law enforcement officials at every level are required to enforce federal statutes. It cites those statutes. If anything we have a President and Administration who are vocally refusing to enforce existing federal law regarding protection of nthe boarders and upholding their duties of office. That’s impeachable, not enforcing laws that in 100% of all other countries of the world would be enforced without prejudice against everyone (citizen and visitor alike). If the President doesn’t like the law, he can resign (we wish) or he can enforce the law and apologize to the US Citizens who live in Arizona. I am an American first and being Hispanic is irrelavent to sustaining the laws of our land. When you come here illegally, you are steeling from Americans of all races including me and my family who are citizens 3rd generation from birth. If you don’t like our laws, leave. If you would rather have anarchy and corruption, go home. If you want more compassion, then tell Mexico to let Americans invest in and own property and businesses in Mexico. We demand the same rights in Mexico that you want for free. Until then…no amnisty, no hope. Go home! If you want your homes to be like America where opportunity abounds, take Mexico back from the corrupt politicians, federalies and drug pushers. Stop blaming America which is way more patient and tolerant with humanity than any other nation on earth. Stop coveting what America has earned and built…build it at home yourselves. Via con dios – Long live America!
Louis
I’m with you Louis. I am American Indian. When leaving the country north or south I must show passport. When stopped by police officer, I must show drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance. If I do not have these I can be cited.
The old excuse was that Mexicans do jobs that Americans will not do. Well, I worked construction most of my life, along side non-English speaking hispanics. Hummmmm.
I am also a proud Hispanic who finds nothing offensive, nor inordinately discriminatory, nor hateful in this law. It calls for th enforcement of Federal law and refers to Federal authority in assessing the legal status of immigrants. My ancestors came to this country, or were already here, legally–or before there was such a thing as “Legal status”.
I firmly believe in welcoming our immigrant brothers and sisters. I also believe that we need to be able to maintain the integrity of our frontiers, so we can have a populace who can live in peace, safe from foreign intruders.
Those who come to this great nation need to go through the proper process. The Arizona law helps to ensure this. All it does is reinforce Federal law. If the Feds don’t like that, it’s too bad. Their job is to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President (no matter which one) as long as those specific laws are not deemed Unconstitutional.
It doesn’t matter what you guys like or not, or if you’re an immigrant or not. What matters is if the Law is Constitutional or not. And that will be decided by experts.
One word for you Louis and you little partner K-whatever.Lame! You guys are a bunch of IGNORANT people that happen not to understnad anything. How can you turn on your own people. ummm yea that’s just dumb. You think your so American; honey please read a textbook or something on history and check your facts. Everybody who is in this country isnt legal. So dont bring yourself up above all. And totally an agreement with YourFather it is Unconstitutional and 100% stupid. It’s also funny how you just keep pointing fingers at Mexico when clearly they aren’t the only illegals here.
P.S and don’t act like you don’t or can’t write or speak Spanish cause i bet you have TLACUACHE all over your forehead.
LaQueen:
My people are white, red, brown, black, AMERICAN. MY PEOPLE are law abiding citizens of this country. MY PEOPLE do not break the law of a foreign nation and then demand forgiveness and tolerance simple because we want it. MY PEOPLE do not COVET that which belongs to others, do not STEAL that which belongs to others. I have great concern for my people and would fight beside my people if they had the guts to fight the real enemy. That enemy is NOT the United States. It is Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and other mass murderers like Castro. The enemy is not GOD so why make GOD your enemy by shattering the TENTH commandment. What part of THOU SHALT NOT COVET do you not understand? Stealing your way into America when legal channels are available is wrong. It makes criminals out of people that just want to work and be treated fairly. But until LEGAL access laws are changed, you are still advocating a breaking of the law for covetous purposes. I would like to see immigration for guest worker purposes easier. But until Mexico addresses similar demands for investment and capital property rights for non-Mexicans, why should America give a Mexican citizen anything. I cannot buy property in my ancestral land. When that changes, maybe then I would suggest we be more open with access. Until then, if you are illegal – go home.
I just want everyone to take a moment to think about HOW this law can and will be enforced. Ask yourself these questions: What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien? What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is an alien, resident or visiting? If a person thought to be an alien is stopped, the law mandates that s/he be carrying status papers; but how does a person who is thought to be an alien prove they’re in fact a citizen. How would you prove that you’re a citizen? If the person doesn’t have status papers, the officer can detain him/her until that status is confirmed; what happens while you’re detained (ie who picks up your kids, calls your partner/spouse, who calls your boss, what happens to your car and what are the monetary costs to you and your family/friends)
Think about this possibility: A, a Honduran American, is driving to work in a battered jalopy. A is any shade of brown that is not usually associated with whiteness. A drives through a neighborhood where battered jalopies are only seen during the working hours of the day. B, an officer assigned to patrol the non-jalopy neighborhood, pulls A over. B asks to see A’s license, registration and insurance. For some reasonable suspicion, B asks to see A’s immigrant status papers. A says “I’m a citizen of the United States.” B doesn’t really believe him (for some subconscious reason explored only by social psychologists and critical race theorists), and given the circumstances, (brown man in a beat up truck with tools in the back in a neighborhood where in-home construction is done by people who look like A) B decides to detain (which means in handcuffs) A until he can go to the station and figure out A’s legal status.
This isn’t an outrageous possibility. Always remember that laws are created and enforced by people who have their own prejudices and beliefs and who are, by virtue of being human, fallible. A reasonable suspicion can be unreasonable. Don’t blindly believe that every law on the books has a honorable motive. Many, including this one, do not; just look at the amended and stricken language to determine this motive.