Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 5

Text of changes to Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 1-501  & 1-502 made by House Bill 2162 and new Sections 7, 8 & 9 of House Bill 2162 (effective 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.  This post does not contain the entire text of the HB 2162.  Other changes made by HB 2162 are contained in parts 1, 2 & 3.  The entire Arizona immigration law  as amended by HB 2162 is contained in this part 5 and in:

The following Sections 1-501 and 1-502 are existing Arizona statutes as modified by HB 2162.  Sections 7, 8, and 9 of HB 2162 follow Section 1-502.

1-501.  Eligibility for federal public benefits; documentation; violation; classification; citizen suits; attorney fees; definition

A.  Notwithstanding any other state law and to the extent permitted by federal law, any natural person who applies for a federal public benefit that is administered by this state or a political subdivision of this state and that requires participants to be citizens of the United States, legal residents of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States shall submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the federal public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:

1.  An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2.  A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3.  A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4.  A United States passport.
5.  A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6.  An I-94 form with a photograph.
7.  A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8.  A United States certificate of naturalization.
9.  A United States certificate of citizenship.
10.  A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11.  A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.

B.  For the purposes of administering the Arizona health care cost containment system, documentation of citizenship and legal residence shall conform with the requirements of title XIX of the social security act.

C.  To the extent permitted by federal law, an agency of this state or political subdivision of this state may allow tribal members, the elderly and persons with disabilities or incapacity of the mind or body to provide documentation as specified in section 6036 of the federal deficit reduction act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171; 120 Stat. 81) and related federal guidance in lieu of the documentation required by this section.

D.  Any person who applies for federal public benefits shall sign a sworn affidavit stating that the documents presented pursuant to subsection A of this section are true under penalty of perjury.

E.  Failure to report discovered violations of federal immigration law by an employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state that administers any federal public benefit is a class 2 misdemeanor.  If that employee’s supervisor knew of the failure to report and failed to direct the employee to make the report, the supervisor is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

F.  This section shall be enforced without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin.

G.  Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this section, including an action for mandamus.  Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court.

H.  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.

IH.  For the purposes of this section, “federal public benefit” has the same meaning prescribed in 8 United States Code section 1611.

1-502.  Eligibility for state or local public benefits; documentation; violation; classification; citizen suits; attorney fees; definition

A.  Notwithstanding any other state law and to the extent permitted by federal law, any agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state that administers any state or local public benefit shall require each natural person who applies for the state or local public benefit to submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the state or local public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:

1.  An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2.  A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3.  A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4.  A United States passport.
5.  A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6.  An I-94 form with a photograph.
7.  A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8.  A United States certificate of naturalization.
9.  A United States certificate of citizenship.
10.  A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11.  A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.

B.  For the purposes of administering the Arizona health care cost containment system, documentation of citizenship and legal residence shall conform with the requirements of title XIX of the social security act.

C.  To the extent permitted by federal law, an agency of this state or political subdivision of this state may allow tribal members, the elderly and persons with disabilities or incapacity of the mind or body to provide documentation as specified in section 6036 of the federal deficit reduction act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171; 120 Stat. 81) and related federal guidance in lieu of the documentation required by this section.

D.  Any person who applies for state or local public benefits shall sign a sworn affidavit stating that the documents presented pursuant to subsection A of this section are true under penalty of perjury.

E.  Failure to report discovered violations of federal immigration law by an employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state that administers any state or local public benefit is a class 2 misdemeanor.  If that employee’s supervisor knew of the failure to report and failed to direct the employee to make the report, the supervisor is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

F.  This section shall be enforced without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin.

G.  Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this section, including an action for mandamus.  Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court.

H.  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.

IH.  For the purposes of this section, “state or local public benefit” has the same meaning prescribed in 8 United States Code section 1621, except that it does not include commercial or professional licenses, or benefits provided by the public retirement systems and plans of this state or services widely available to the general population as a whole.

Sec. 7.  Joint border security advisory committee; membership; duties; report; delayed repeal

A.  The joint border security advisory committee is established consisting of the following members:

1.  The president of the senate or the president’s designee.
2.  The speaker of the house of representatives or the speaker’s designee.
3.  Two members of the house of representatives who are appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.
4.  Two members of the senate who are appointed by the president of the senate.
5.  Six members who are appointed by the governor.

B.  Committee members are not eligible to receive compensation for committee activities but may be eligible for reimbursement of expenses pursuant to title 38, chapter 4, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes.

C.  The president and the speaker of the house of representatives shall each appoint a cochairperson of the committee.

D.  The commission shall meet on the call of the two cochairpersons, but no more frequently than monthly.

E.  The committee may:

1.  Take testimony and other evidence regarding the international border with Mexico.
2.  Analyze border crossing statistics.
3.  Analyze related crime statistics.
4.  Make recommendations designed to increase border security.
5.  Make other recommendations deemed essential by the committee.

F.  The committee may use the services of legislative staff as required.

G.  Beginning November 30, 2010 and each month thereafter, the commission shall submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate and the governor.  The commission shall provide a copy of the report to the secretary of state.

H.  Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the committee may vote to go into executive session to take testimony or evidence it considers sensitive or confidential in nature, which if released could compromise the security or safety of law enforcement or military personnel or a law enforcement or national guard law enforcement support operation.

I.  This section is repealed from and after December 31, 2014.

Sec. 8.  Immigration legislation challenges

A.  Notwithstanding title 41, chapter 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, and any other law, through December 31, 2010, the attorney general shall act at the direction of the governor in any challenge in a state or federal court to Laws 2010, chapter 113 and any amendments to that law.

B.  Notwithstanding title 41, chapter 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, and any other law, through December 31, 2010, the governor may direct counsel other than the attorney general to appear on behalf of this state to defend any challenge to Laws 2010, chapter 113 and any amendments to that law.

Sec. 9.  Conditional enactment

Sections 11‑1051, 13‑1509, 13-2928 and 13-2929, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, do not become effective unless Senate Bill 1070, forty-ninth legislature, second regular session, relating to unlawfully present aliens, becomes law.

2017-06-02T21:33:36+00:00

18 Comments

  1. Richard L. Scotti May 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Under the new law in Arizona. Can a police officer just ask for proof of citizenship in the USA WITHOUT any other violation happening any king
    \Example a police just walks up top a person and asks for proof he is a US Citizen??

    • DMLewis July 28, 2010 at 1:53 pm

      no, part 1 paragraph 1 says that a person who is stopped lawfully or arrested or detained can be asked about their citizenship. there has to be reason for police to think the person is breaking the law before they ask them for ID.

  2. James Scott May 4, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    No, it doesn’t. Despite what many people have been saying in the media, this law does not permit police officers to stop people for no reason.

    Look at section B in the text of the new law. It authorizes peace officers to investigate the alien status of an individual only when making a “lawful stop, arrest, or detention.” The officer must have a lawful basis for stopping the individual; otherwise, the new law doesn’t even kick in.

    Plus, the new law requires the officer to have “reasonable suspicion” for thinking that the individual is an illegal alien. The US Supreme Court already ruled decades ago that an officer’s “reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” provides a satisfactory basis for stopping that individual and requesting identification, among other things. Since this is the same standard that already applies to all stops made by police officers throughout the country, the new Arizona law permits the same kinds of stops that police officers have always had the authority to make.

  3. McFadden May 7, 2010 at 9:35 am

    But what is the definition of “lawful stop”? I know that cops are allowed to walk up to whoever they want and ask questions; people don’t have to respond, but cops are free to solicit voluntary statements (generally). I at least know that “lawful contact” in the first version of this law would have probably allowed that. But “lawful stop” means more than just casually asking questions, which cops are already allowed to do?

  4. Dwight Brown May 15, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    This is not the Anti Immigration Law, it is the Anti-Illegal Immigration Law. The key word is “Illegal.” Why do people object to stopping something that is illegal?

  5. Matt W. May 17, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Easy, Dwight. Because you would lay an egg if you had to pay $5 for a tomato but refuse to empathize with the people that make it possible for you to afford such produce. Dumb shit.

    • Ron H. May 17, 2010 at 5:26 pm

      Really? $5 tomatos? That’s the reason to allow illegal immigration? Well then, let’s allow the immigration of Chinese children into the USA so that you can have $7 shoes. And name calling . . . that just shows the weakness of your argument.

  6. Don B. May 18, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    I find it funny that 5 Cities from California are boycotting the AZ law when they have a very simalar law on there own books.
    California penal code 834b with respect to illegal immigration:
    (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

    The only addition AZ made was to include a “Lawful Stop or Detention Clause which if one reads further states:”can only be made in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance”. And the law goes on to state further that” 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.

    So if your stopped because your headlight is out and the officer asks to see your license and registraion and it is detemined that you are here illegally, your rights are being violated and you were racially profiled????

    How many time have you been stopped by a cop and what’s the first thing they ask for after they ask you,”do you know how fast you were going?

  7. half tide rock May 18, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    I have now become one of the small minority that has actually read the “controversial” bill. I have also had the opportunity to read the postings of individuals who have also read the law. I am able to repair uninformed opinions, I can argue against eroneous opinions and finally I can educate the uneducated. But I can’t fix stupid… the people who do not understand the crisis that has propelled this law into existance and the rationality for it’s form are intelectually ignorant of the challenge that it is attempting to address. These people are seriously confused about what a responsible decison looks like in the face of a serious challenge. We can’t fix stupid. Stupid is uncureable, it has nothing to do with IQ. Very smart people have to be accompanied accross the street. I look through them for they are the convienient fools that have no respect from their leadership and even their own peers. My comment is therefor directed to those who pertsist in bantering and providing elaborate arguements to individuals who are for what ever reason unable to process the basic information. I say don’t waste your time. When you see these people know them for what they are. Ignore them and seek out better uses of your time.

  8. James A. May 19, 2010 at 10:22 am

    So am I to understand that passports from other countries of foreign nationals are considered sufficient for purposes of identification in order to receive federal benefits but drivers licenses of US citizens from other states are not?

    • Magyver May 20, 2010 at 12:12 pm

      James, most likely the benefits in question require citizenship in Arizona for those benefits to be administered in Arizona.

      As such, an out of state license is not proof of residency.

      That is the likely reason for the wording of the parts about accepted ID.

    • Bob May 20, 2010 at 9:00 pm

      James,

      Some states require proof of legal residency prior to issuance of an ID or driver’s license. For example, here are the requirements taken directly from California’s DMV website:

      “Birth date verification and legal presence requirements

      The issue of identification reliability, integrity, and confidentiality is of prime concern to all citizens. Eligibility for government services, issuance of various licenses, assessment of taxes, the right to vote, etc., are all determined through evaluations based on identification documents. It is critical that identification documents be authenticated and accurate in identifying each individual. The California driver license and ID card have been declared as primary identification documents in this state by the California legislature.

      State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (ID) card and driver license to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States to help safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents. If your current name no longer matches the name on your birth date/legal presence document, see “True Full Name” and “How to Change Your Name” for more information.

      Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable:

      – US Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local vital statistics office)
      – US Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad
      – Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
      – USCIS American Indian Card
      – Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
      – US Passport or US Passport Card
      – US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent of a military member, retired member, discharged from service, medical/religious personnel)
      – Common Access Card (only if designated as Active military or Active Reserve or Active Selected Reserve)
      – Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
      – Northern Mariana Card
      – USCIS US Citizen ID Card
      – Permanent Resident Card
      – Temporary Resident Identification Card
      – Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
      – Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
      – Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I-94)
      – “Processed for I-551” stamped in a valid foreign passport
      – Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit
      – Refugee travel document
      – Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisdiction. Must contain name, birth date, place of birth, legal presence status, and judge’s signature.
      – Certification from California Department of Corrections or California Youth Authority
      – Employment Authorization Card
      – Valid I-94 stamped “Refugee,” “Parole or Parolee,” “Asylee,” or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 212d(2), HP or PIP
      – Valid I-94 with attached photo stamped “Processed for I-551 temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent residence”
      – Notice of Action (I-797 Approved Petition) – must indicate approved extension of stay or change in status that grants temporary or permanent residency, or indicates that an original, duplicate or renewal Resident Alien card is forthcoming.
      – Immigration judge’s order granting asylum
      – Mexican Border Crossing Card with valid I-94
      – U.S. Border Crossing Identification card with valid I-94″

      Here’s the link to the DMV page (since most people who rant and rave here do not back up anything they claim with sources)
      http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP

      ===================
      Arizona has reciprocity between those states which require proof of residency, in order to cut down on research time for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) if someone is detained for some sort of other violation.

      ===================
      In addition, a SS Card is required for a Commercial Driver’s license, and also for renewal for an existing DL that has the SSN already in the database, regardless of the class. Here’s the text from that page:

      The Social Security Act allows any state to use the SSN to establish the identification of an individual. The California Vehicle Code requires the collection of the social security number.

      “All applicants must submit to DMV their social security number.

      Evidence of your social security number is required only on applications for an original commercial driver license and any request to correct a SSN that is already on the driver record data base, regardless of the class. The SSN is considered confidential and will not appear on the photo license or be encoded on the magnetic stripe. Any documents that the department is authorized to release to the public will have the SSN masked. The SSN is electronically verified with Social Security Administration while you are in the DMV office for all DL/ID card transactions, if it has not already been verified.”

      Here’s the link to THAT page, too:
      http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#SSN

      P.S. I am not the “Bob” who is a LEO and who posted earlier in this thread.

  9. jordan from georgia May 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    I think its funny that in order to be a FEDERAL contractor you must show that all of your employees are legal and eligeble to work in this country but yet the federal government wants to say that this state should not have a law which is already a federal law???? bottom line arizona is stepping up and doing what our federal government is afraid to do. If each illegal immigrant was counted on the census, we would have the right number of teachers and uniform patrol officers to patrol our streets just to name a few benifits. I have no issue with someone wanting to come here to work to better themselves but it needs to be done legally. If we went into another country illegally do you think they would hesitate to throw us out. NO.

  10. Larry May 26, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Who can point me to an educated, objective, unbiased comparison of the new AZ law and applicable US federal law?
    I’ve read this site and parts of USC 8 1304 off and on…any thing out there?

  11. Bob May 28, 2010 at 12:29 am

    @ Larry:
    8 United States Code Section 1373(c)

    Just copy that code and Google it. It will be the first link at the top.

    The AZ Code that references it- Section 3 (B):

    “5 Any person who is arrested shall
    6 have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is
    7 released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal
    8 government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).”

    and

    Section 3 (E):
    “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).”

  12. WILLEM May 31, 2010 at 9:38 am

    The reason that the existing laws both federal and state are not being enforced is simple.
    (1) Political Consequence
    (2) Lack of belief in or will to, enforce existing immigration law. It is not hard to understand why those here illegally, would not want any real enforcement that might change their own status or “Naturalization” process to proceed. Hard to hide for 5 years or more.

  13. John June 3, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Hello all:

    Let me add to this discussion with a short story. I am a retired CA peace officer. One day, while I was in training, my training officer said, “Let’s pull over some Mexicans tonight (he did not know that my mother’s maiden name is Uribe). I said, “How do we just pull them over for no reason?” He said, “There is always a way to make a stop, for instance, how many people activate their turn signal 50 feet before a turn, at 49′ you can make the stop.” So you follow your target (Mexicans) and wait for them to slip up (which anyone might do as they nervously watch the cop following them). And believe me, within the traffic code there are many many ways to catch someone on something trivial. Courts call this spirit vs. letter of the law. But for an officer with an agenda, and a populace exasperated by crime, spirit of the law goes out the window. Minorities only have due process to protect them. As a person of color who is also a citizen, laws that single out a given ethnic group concern me. I know the law specifically says you may not consider race, but come on, common sense tells you that people of Canadian nationality would not be stopped by the officer I spoke of above. That is why even citizen’s who are of Mexican ethnicity are offended. You assume police are a bunch of goody-two-shoes, and I am here to tell you that they are not.

  14. John June 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Let me add a further comment. As a CA peace officer, we would often discover that someone in our custody was illegal. We would call INS and ask that they come pick this person up, to which they would respond, “Sorry, we don’t have the manpower available to process them.” We couldn’t even hand deliver illegals, INS would just give them a court date and tell them to show up before releasing them. They never went to court. Just because you make a law in a State, it doesn’t mean the feds have to work with you. That is why a solution by the Federal Government has to be the answer.

Leave A Comment