Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 4

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.

2017-06-02T21:13:03+00:00

4 Comments

  1. Louis May 17, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    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

  2. Kernneth May 20, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    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.

  3. P-D June 18, 2010 at 9:13 am

    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.

  4. YourFather June 26, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    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.

Leave A Comment