Surprised the more libertarian oriented posters havent posted anything about this yet:

 

Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

 

It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

 

The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.

 

Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.

 

Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."

 

The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.

 

The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.

 

In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."

 

"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"

 

The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.

 

Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.

 

—Tamara Audi contributed to this article.

That article does not accurately describe the new law.

That article does not accurately describe the new law.

 

 

 

ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

 

Thats what the law does. So you can have lawful contact (legal immigrant calls the cops because his house is being robbed, or woman goes to police station to report rape), and cops can demand your papers if they "suspect illegal status," which is based on what? Maybe you can specify?

It's definitely a political football and is being treated as such by both sides.

 

I'd definitely recommend actually reading the thing and crossing it with existing ARS before anyone gets too into the debate.

 

There is so much misinformation out there it's startling (although not unexpected). In reallity a lot of this bill is either tweaking existing arizona law or repeating federal law to make it a state violation.

 

Things I like in the bill are that it will add a new state law making the solicitation of work by those ineligible to work in the US a crime.

 

It adds to existing law on employer sanctions - making entrapment an affirmative defense - however, stating that you cannot be entraped if the condition that is in breach of the law existed before it was exposed by law enforcement .... this will be a big help in enforcing the current employer sanction laws (which I think are one of the major keys)

 

I don't mind that anyone who is driving a vehicle that is suspected of human smuggling AND involved in a suspected civil traffic offense can be questioned about their status.

 

I also don't mind that citizens can bring suit against officials who put in an ordinance where they will not aide in the enforcement of federal immigration laws essentially creating a "sanctuary city"

 

The part I don't like is how much ambiguity there is on the earlier part on when they can ask for status. There are two undefined qualifications and then a very broad scope.

 

In order to ask for status there needs to be "lawful contact" and then "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien. From there you find a 3rd, but in my opinion less severe, undefined term - that is making a "reasonable attempt" to check status. Finally, all of this has to be in accordance with Federal Immigration Laws and cannot violate the civil rights of any person (note: not citizen, but person)

 

Those questionable terms will need to be legally defined and about the only way to do that is through the legal system which takes time and money.

 

Also, Federal Immigration law is very complex and there is a lot of it. I'm not sure if we have the resources to properly train local law enforcement on it to the point where they can ensure compliance.

 

As far as drivers licenses, etc. There are a wide variety of papers that although do not prove citizenship - their mere presence can remove reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen. For example, a DL isn't proof of citizenship anywhere. However, it's generally only issued to citizens so if you have one it's hard to build a case that you aren't a legal citizen - it removed an element of suspicion although it doesn't definitely prove anything. Any of these papers can be used to remove reasonable suspicion.

 

As far as other ways to remove reasonable suspicion I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of standard, acceptable litmus test .... similar to what they have with DUI

 

From there once the law is established and the details are worked out the outcry (or lack thereof) will depend on the enforcement/application.

 

It's going to be impossible to avoid profiling in every aspect. However, this is no different than what you have with federal law right now. There are existing immigration checkpoints in the state of AZ (and other states) that are on corridors that are known to be heavy on illegal traffic. There is little outcry about this, but i'm sure profilling goes not only into selection of where to place them but i'm sure I get a different set of questions than others.

 

I could see it filling the gap that we have now where an illegal is involved with a traffic violation, civil offense, etc and when there is a question of identification (which there always is - although I'm not required to carry ID on my person, if I get into a fight walking home and the police show up they're going to ask for ID from both parties). As it is now they can't ask questions on status and the federal government has pretty much stated they don't want to be bothered with checking. So there is a big gap there.

 

However, if they are walking around guadalupe asking for papers that would be a serious issue.

 

Finally, what is the end benefit. I'm not sure if there is much. Although I think the hysteria is on this bill is often unfounded and both sides have done a lot of posturing and hyperbole I'm not sure how much in here is a solution.

 

I personally would of been happier with them stating that it's illegal to solicit work as an illegal and to tighten up the existing sanctioning laws and call it a day.

 

As it stands now there is a lot of questions on training, responsibilities & cooperation between the federal/state officers, etc. How much cost is actually being passed through to the federal government - how much is being beared locally.

 

What are the punishments? If deportation what is in place that would prevent re-entry, etc.

 

I don't know if there will be any real tangible benefit to offset the costs.

 

What I see this as is political opportunism. There is a problem with illegal immigration, we are entering an election year and it's popular to show the image of being tough. With that said, it's an election year in other places where the climate is different so it's a good opportunity to blast this law and rally your base. Then there are opportunists who want to take a chunk of the economic pie.

It's definitely a political football and is being treated as such by both sides.

 

I'd definitely recommend actually reading the thing and crossing it with existing ARS before anyone gets too into the debate.

 

There is so much misinformation out there it's startling (although not unexpected). In reallity a lot of this bill is either tweaking existing arizona law or repeating federal law to make it a state violation.

 

Things I like in the bill are that it will add a new state law making the solicitation of work by those ineligible to work in the US a crime.

 

It adds to existing law on employer sanctions - making entrapment an affirmative defense - however, stating that you cannot be entraped if the condition that is in breach of the law existed before it was exposed by law enforcement .... this will be a big help in enforcing the current employer sanction laws (which I think are one of the major keys)

 

I don't mind that anyone who is driving a vehicle that is suspected of human smuggling AND involved in a suspected civil traffic offense can be questioned about their status.

 

I also don't mind that citizens can bring suit against officials who put in an ordinance where they will not aide in the enforcement of federal immigration laws essentially creating a "sanctuary city"

 

The part I don't like is how much ambiguity there is on the earlier part on when they can ask for status. There are two undefined qualifications and then a very broad scope.

 

In order to ask for status there needs to be "lawful contact" and then "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien. From there you find a 3rd, but in my opinion less severe, undefined term - that is making a "reasonable attempt" to check status. Finally, all of this has to be in accordance with Federal Immigration Laws and cannot violate the civil rights of any person (note: not citizen, but person)

 

Those questionable terms will need to be legally defined and about the only way to do that is through the legal system which takes time and money.

 

Also, Federal Immigration law is very complex and there is a lot of it. I'm not sure if we have the resources to properly train local law enforcement on it to the point where they can ensure compliance.

 

As far as drivers licenses, etc. There are a wide variety of papers that although do not prove citizenship - their mere presence can remove reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen. For example, a DL isn't proof of citizenship anywhere. However, it's generally only issued to citizens so if you have one it's hard to build a case that you aren't a legal citizen - it removed an element of suspicion although it doesn't definitely prove anything. Any of these papers can be used to remove reasonable suspicion.

 

As far as other ways to remove reasonable suspicion I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of standard, acceptable litmus test .... similar to what they have with DUI

 

From there once the law is established and the details are worked out the outcry (or lack thereof) will depend on the enforcement/application.

 

It's going to be impossible to avoid profiling in every aspect. However, this is no different than what you have with federal law right now. There are existing immigration checkpoints in the state of AZ (and other states) that are on corridors that are known to be heavy on illegal traffic. There is little outcry about this, but i'm sure profilling goes not only into selection of where to place them but i'm sure I get a different set of questions than others.

 

I could see it filling the gap that we have now where an illegal is involved with a traffic violation, civil offense, etc and when there is a question of identification (which there always is - although I'm not required to carry ID on my person, if I get into a fight walking home and the police show up they're going to ask for ID from both parties). As it is now they can't ask questions on status and the federal government has pretty much stated they don't want to be bothered with checking. So there is a big gap there.

 

However, if they are walking around guadalupe asking for papers that would be a serious issue.

 

Finally, what is the end benefit. I'm not sure if there is much. Although I think the hysteria is on this bill is often unfounded and both sides have done a lot of posturing and hyperbole I'm not sure how much in here is a solution.

 

I personally would of been happier with them stating that it's illegal to solicit work as an illegal and to tighten up the existing sanctioning laws and call it a day.

 

As it stands now there is a lot of questions on training, responsibilities & cooperation between the federal/state officers, etc. How much cost is actually being passed through to the federal government - how much is being beared locally.

 

What are the punishments? If deportation what is in place that would prevent re-entry, etc.

 

I don't know if there will be any real tangible benefit to offset the costs.

 

What I see this as is political opportunism. There is a problem with illegal immigration, we are entering an election year and it's popular to show the image of being tough. With that said, it's an election year in other places where the climate is different so it's a good opportunity to blast this law and rally your base. Then there are opportunists who want to take a chunk of the economic pie.

 

 

You made so many factual errors about citizenship and immigration laws here that I think you are the one that is misinformed.

It seems almost as if AZ was taking the position that the federal government was asleep at the wheel when they should have been enforcing and then the state decided to take matters into its own hands.

 

 

this is a big part of it

It's definitely a political football and is being treated as such by both sides.

 

I'd definitely recommend actually reading the thing and crossing it with existing ARS before anyone gets too into the debate.

 

There is so much misinformation out there it's startling (although not unexpected). In reallity a lot of this bill is either tweaking existing arizona law or repeating federal law to make it a state violation.

 

Things I like in the bill are that it will add a new state law making the solicitation of work by those ineligible to work in the US a crime.

 

It adds to existing law on employer sanctions - making entrapment an affirmative defense - however, stating that you cannot be entraped if the condition that is in breach of the law existed before it was exposed by law enforcement .... this will be a big help in enforcing the current employer sanction laws (which I think are one of the major keys)

 

I don't mind that anyone who is driving a vehicle that is suspected of human smuggling AND involved in a suspected civil traffic offense can be questioned about their status.

 

I also don't mind that citizens can bring suit against officials who put in an ordinance where they will not aide in the enforcement of federal immigration laws essentially creating a "sanctuary city"

 

The part I don't like is how much ambiguity there is on the earlier part on when they can ask for status. There are two undefined qualifications and then a very broad scope.

 

In order to ask for status there needs to be "lawful contact" and then "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien. From there you find a 3rd, but in my opinion less severe, undefined term - that is making a "reasonable attempt" to check status. Finally, all of this has to be in accordance with Federal Immigration Laws and cannot violate the civil rights of any person (note: not citizen, but person)

 

Those questionable terms will need to be legally defined and about the only way to do that is through the legal system which takes time and money.

 

Also, Federal Immigration law is very complex and there is a lot of it. I'm not sure if we have the resources to properly train local law enforcement on it to the point where they can ensure compliance.

 

As far as drivers licenses, etc. There are a wide variety of papers that although do not prove citizenship - their mere presence can remove reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen. For example, a DL isn't proof of citizenship anywhere. However, it's generally only issued to citizens so if you have one it's hard to build a case that you aren't a legal citizen - it removed an element of suspicion although it doesn't definitely prove anything. Any of these papers can be used to remove reasonable suspicion.

 

As far as other ways to remove reasonable suspicion I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of standard, acceptable litmus test .... similar to what they have with DUI

 

From there once the law is established and the details are worked out the outcry (or lack thereof) will depend on the enforcement/application.

 

It's going to be impossible to avoid profiling in every aspect. However, this is no different than what you have with federal law right now. There are existing immigration checkpoints in the state of AZ (and other states) that are on corridors that are known to be heavy on illegal traffic. There is little outcry about this, but i'm sure profilling goes not only into selection of where to place them but i'm sure I get a different set of questions than others.

 

I could see it filling the gap that we have now where an illegal is involved with a traffic violation, civil offense, etc and when there is a question of identification (which there always is - although I'm not required to carry ID on my person, if I get into a fight walking home and the police show up they're going to ask for ID from both parties). As it is now they can't ask questions on status and the federal government has pretty much stated they don't want to be bothered with checking. So there is a big gap there.

 

However, if they are walking around guadalupe asking for papers that would be a serious issue.

 

Finally, what is the end benefit. I'm not sure if there is much. Although I think the hysteria is on this bill is often unfounded and both sides have done a lot of posturing and hyperbole I'm not sure how much in here is a solution.

 

I personally would of been happier with them stating that it's illegal to solicit work as an illegal and to tighten up the existing sanctioning laws and call it a day.

 

As it stands now there is a lot of questions on training, responsibilities & cooperation between the federal/state officers, etc. How much cost is actually being passed through to the federal government - how much is being beared locally.

 

What are the punishments? If deportation what is in place that would prevent re-entry, etc.

 

I don't know if there will be any real tangible benefit to offset the costs.

 

What I see this as is political opportunism. There is a problem with illegal immigration, we are entering an election year and it's popular to show the image of being tough. With that said, it's an election year in other places where the climate is different so it's a good opportunity to blast this law and rally your base. Then there are opportunists who want to take a chunk of the economic pie.

 

 

You made so many factual errors about citizenship and immigration laws here that I think you are the one that is misinformed.

 

Please point them out so I can learn. I don't think I was speaking much to citizenship or immigration law. Mainly to what exists in AZ now, what doesn't exist in AZ now and how this modifies it.

 

The only parts I could possibly see you having issue aren't even heavily relevant in that level of specification. Probably in the drivers license section I used "citizen" as opposed to "having legal resident status". Definitely an error on my part, but doesn't take away that there are state issued documents that are generally only issued to those with legal status - possessing them removes suspicion that you do not have legal status.

 

Then maybe on asking for an ID if i get in a fight when walking. In AZ I'm not required to give anything other than my lawful name. However, it's a crime if I lie about this. What they would probably do is bring me in for processing due to fighting while confirming my identity.

There are really three issues here:

 

1) The constitution specifically grants the federal government the authority to regulate immigration. The states do not have this power. Therefore, for the state to have authority to engage in anything related to immigration it may do so only if the federal government has given it that authority. The feds and state and local authorities coordinate on these matters, so I know there is an infrastructure in place to handle this. It appears that the federal government, however, has not given Arizona the authority to do this.

 

2) The constitutionality issue that penguino alluded to earlier. I think that's pretty obvious. To be found a violation of equal protection the law does not have to say "find Mexicans". There can be a violation if the conduct is such that the law could only be properly executed if there were some racial profiling going on.

 

3) Even if you get through the first two issues were resolved in Arizona's favor (highly unlikely), there is an additional constitutional issue. It is settled constitutional law that you cannot criminalize status. This means you can't make it a crime to be something. So you can't say, "it is illegal to be homosexual." You can only regulate BEHAVIOR. That's why states have anti sodomy laws - they can't regulate status. In this case, they aren't criminalizing behavior... they're criminalizing status. The law doesn't say it is illegal to cross the border without proper documentation (which is pretty obvious) ... it criminalizes the status of not having the proper documents.

 

Just to add, crossing the border "illegally" is actually not a crime. It's actually an administrative violation - legally, this is like violating something in the building code.

It's definitely a political football and is being treated as such by both sides.

 

I'd definitely recommend actually reading the thing and crossing it with existing ARS before anyone gets too into the debate.

 

There is so much misinformation out there it's startling (although not unexpected). In reallity a lot of this bill is either tweaking existing arizona law or repeating federal law to make it a state violation.

 

Things I like in the bill are that it will add a new state law making the solicitation of work by those ineligible to work in the US a crime.

 

It adds to existing law on employer sanctions - making entrapment an affirmative defense - however, stating that you cannot be entraped if the condition that is in breach of the law existed before it was exposed by law enforcement .... this will be a big help in enforcing the current employer sanction laws (which I think are one of the major keys)

 

I don't mind that anyone who is driving a vehicle that is suspected of human smuggling AND involved in a suspected civil traffic offense can be questioned about their status.

 

I also don't mind that citizens can bring suit against officials who put in an ordinance where they will not aide in the enforcement of federal immigration laws essentially creating a "sanctuary city"

 

The part I don't like is how much ambiguity there is on the earlier part on when they can ask for status. There are two undefined qualifications and then a very broad scope.

 

In order to ask for status there needs to be "lawful contact" and then "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien. From there you find a 3rd, but in my opinion less severe, undefined term - that is making a "reasonable attempt" to check status. Finally, all of this has to be in accordance with Federal Immigration Laws and cannot violate the civil rights of any person (note: not citizen, but person)

 

Those questionable terms will need to be legally defined and about the only way to do that is through the legal system which takes time and money.

 

Also, Federal Immigration law is very complex and there is a lot of it. I'm not sure if we have the resources to properly train local law enforcement on it to the point where they can ensure compliance.

 

As far as drivers licenses, etc. There are a wide variety of papers that although do not prove citizenship - their mere presence can remove reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen. For example, a DL isn't proof of citizenship anywhere. However, it's generally only issued to citizens so if you have one it's hard to build a case that you aren't a legal citizen - it removed an element of suspicion although it doesn't definitely prove anything. Any of these papers can be used to remove reasonable suspicion.

 

As far as other ways to remove reasonable suspicion I'm sure they'll come up with some kind of standard, acceptable litmus test .... similar to what they have with DUI

 

From there once the law is established and the details are worked out the outcry (or lack thereof) will depend on the enforcement/application.

 

It's going to be impossible to avoid profiling in every aspect. However, this is no different than what you have with federal law right now. There are existing immigration checkpoints in the state of AZ (and other states) that are on corridors that are known to be heavy on illegal traffic. There is little outcry about this, but i'm sure profilling goes not only into selection of where to place them but i'm sure I get a different set of questions than others.

 

I could see it filling the gap that we have now where an illegal is involved with a traffic violation, civil offense, etc and when there is a question of identification (which there always is - although I'm not required to carry ID on my person, if I get into a fight walking home and the police show up they're going to ask for ID from both parties). As it is now they can't ask questions on status and the federal government has pretty much stated they don't want to be bothered with checking. So there is a big gap there.

 

However, if they are walking around guadalupe asking for papers that would be a serious issue.

 

Finally, what is the end benefit. I'm not sure if there is much. Although I think the hysteria is on this bill is often unfounded and both sides have done a lot of posturing and hyperbole I'm not sure how much in here is a solution.

 

I personally would of been happier with them stating that it's illegal to solicit work as an illegal and to tighten up the existing sanctioning laws and call it a day.

 

As it stands now there is a lot of questions on training, responsibilities & cooperation between the federal/state officers, etc. How much cost is actually being passed through to the federal government - how much is being beared locally.

 

What are the punishments? If deportation what is in place that would prevent re-entry, etc.

 

I don't know if there will be any real tangible benefit to offset the costs.

 

What I see this as is political opportunism. There is a problem with illegal immigration, we are entering an election year and it's popular to show the image of being tough. With that said, it's an election year in other places where the climate is different so it's a good opportunity to blast this law and rally your base. Then there are opportunists who want to take a chunk of the economic pie.

 

 

You made so many factual errors about citizenship and immigration laws here that I think you are the one that is misinformed.

 

Please point them out so I can learn. I don't think I was speaking much to citizenship or immigration law. Mainly to what exists in AZ now, what doesn't exist in AZ now and how this modifies it.

 

I'll address each point specifically:

 

1) "As far as drivers licenses, etc. There are a wide variety of papers that although do not prove citizenship - their mere presence can remove reasonable suspicion that you are not a citizen. For example, a DL isn't proof of citizenship anywhere. However, it's generally only issued to citizens so if you have one it's hard to build a case that you aren't a legal citizen - it removed an element of suspicion although it doesn't definitely prove anything. Any of these papers can be used to remove reasonable suspicion."

 

No. You can have a drivers' license and not be a citizen. There are non-citizens that are here legally that have a drivers' license. There are non-citizens that are not here illegally that have a divers' license. The license issue is a state issue. So in some states you can get a DL if you are here illegally. Also, you can be a citizen, but not have a drivers' license. In short, having a drivers' license (or not) really does not tell you anything about your immigration status.

 

Also, I am Hispanic. I also happen to be a U.S. citizen. What if I don't have a DL on me when someone spots a brown looking dude walking down the street? Or how about if I happen not to walk around with a passport? I don't walk around with one. And I don't want to. And I won't.

 

2) "It's going to be impossible to avoid profiling in every aspect. However, this is no different than what you have with federal law right now. There are existing immigration checkpoints in the state of AZ (and other states) that are on corridors that are known to be heavy on illegal traffic. There is little outcry about this, but i'm sure profilling goes not only into selection of where to place them but i'm sure I get a different set of questions than others."

 

You are giving a specific example of law enforcement authority using tactics based on the behavior of people. They know that certain corridors are heavy with illegal immigrants, so they set up a system to catch people. That is a pretty good tactic if you ask me. The law in your state makes it way way too general.

 

3) "I personally would of been happier with them stating that it's illegal to solicit work as an illegal and to tighten up the existing sanctioning laws and call it a day."

 

There are already employer sanctions. I don't think this would help at all.

 

Also, you did point out something important. You said they should make it illegal to for an illegal alien to solicit work. You just basically pointed out the reason most illegal aliens are here in the first place - to work. There are jobs here and they want them. There are employers here that want to hire them. Why not just let the free market be free and implement some sort of guest worker program or whatever and recognize the major driver of illegal immigration.

 

4) "I also don't mind that citizens can bring suit against officials who put in an ordinance where they will not aide in the enforcement of federal immigration laws essentially creating a "sanctuary city""

 

The problem with this statement is that you're putting these officials' backs to the wall. If this law is unconstitutional, they should have a right to fight it.

 

5) "I could see it filling the gap that we have now where an illegal is involved with a traffic violation, civil offense, etc and when there is a question of identification (which there always is - although I'm not required to carry ID on my person, if I get into a fight walking home and the police show up they're going to ask for ID from both parties)."

 

So you're saying no one is required to cary an ID, but they can arrest you for not having an id if they have reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally? You've just basically said it's okay to racially profile.

I didn't make any statement that it would be upheld or really even comment on that.

 

There are arguements about states being able to take on certain aspects of immigration. In fact, the arizona employer sanction law (which is being amended in this law) has passed a previous court challenge. I know the people who were drafting this really tried to study the scope of what the states can do. This will be tested for sure in this respect and I honestly don't know how it will shake out. However, I'll leave it to the courts to decide if it's consitutional or not. In my personal opinion I would like for the states to have abilities to police their own backyard when the federal government is unwilling to. There is only so many times you can ask for help and receive none before you look for ways to do it yourself.

 

As for point two, there is a provision in the law pertinent to the reasonable suspicion/lawful contact portion that states "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 Unites States citizens."

 

The part that everyone seems to have an issue with and which will be governed by the above is "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state ora county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Secion 1373©."

 

Can that be implemented without profiling. I'm sure it's at least open to debate. Nothing in there would indicate that you are going to have your papers demanded from you at any time for any reason for walking down the stree while brown - which is what a lot of people are contending. We have a lot of issues with drop houses out here, human smuggling, illegal corridors, etc. Right now the local officers are very limited in what they can do when they encounter these situations.

 

IMO, the best case is they gain the flexibility to question the status when there becomes enough stacking of circumstances occurs. IMO the worst case scenario is some a-hole cop going on a fishing mission trying to find illegals. I've been pulled over a few times for driving at 2am during fishing exercises - I know that kind of stuff happens. I also know that the DUI checkpoints and being able to pull someone over when they are actually displaying signs of potential intoxication have helped curb drunk driving and I think on the whole the law enforcement does a fair job in prosecuting this crime.

 

I have aknowledged that there will be a training issue as well.

 

On the 3rd point, I agree. I don't think anything in there criminalizes status. It appears to play the same word games as the example you provided. Most of the law in AZ is procedural in how to handle cooperation between AZ officials and existing federal law and their officials.

 

There is a new part that states if you are found in violation of state or local law AND you are unlawfully present you'll be turned over to the federal government. Someone of unlawful status can be transported to a federal facility by a local agency even if the location of the federal facility is outside the jurisdiction of the local authority, etc.

 

They add some new state violations - like trespassing (which ties directly into the federal law).

 

Status must be determined by the federal authorities.

 

There is existing law that makes human smuggling illegal. This expands on that a little.

 

There is existing law that hiring an undocumented worker is illegal. This expands on that.

 

Makes anew law that it is illegal to impede traffic to essentially pick up day labor. They also make it illegal for someone who does not have status and knows they do not have status to work in this country to sollicit work. Again, it's not their status that is the issue. They aren't in trouble because they're here. They're in trouble because they are not eligible to work here and by working they are in violation. It's the working that is the violation.

 

They create a new law that it is illegal to harbor, transport, etc those that you know have unlawful status.

 

There is existing law about e-verify - this adds guidelines about how long records need to be retained.

 

As stated - i'm not necessarily in favor of this bill - I just don't think a lot of people know what they are upset about. Not necessarily you, but a lot of the more vocal ones that we are hearing are pretty much making things up and saying it as truth.

This will be resolved in the court room. I am very confident it will be ruled unconstitutional.

I'll address each point specifically:

 

1) No. You can have a drivers' license and not be a citizen. There are non-citizens that are here legally that have a drivers' license. There are non-citizens that are not here illegally that have a divers' license. The license issue is a state issue. So in some states you can get a DL if you are here illegally. Also, you can be a citizen, but not have a drivers' license. In short, having a drivers' license (or not) really does not tell you anything about your immigration status.

 

Also, I am Hispanic. I also happen to be a U.S. citizen. What if I don't have a DL on me when someone spots a brown looking dude walking down the street? Or how about if I happen not to walk around with a passport? I don't walk around with one. And I don't want to. And I won't.

 

I corrected this and admit that was loose language. However, the first litmus test in this law is reasonable suspicion. If you can only get certain documentation if you have legal status (like a DL here in AZ) then possessing that documentation removes reasonable suspicion. This has already been affirmed here in AZ.

 

You don't have to walk around with one and as long as you aren't creating a crime there is no reason for anyone to look at you differently here. There is nothing that gives officers permission to just grab an average guy off the street. Now if you are creating a crime and there is reasonable suspicion that you may not have legal status and you can't provide something to remove that suspicion that you will be turned over to the feds so they can check on it.

 

2) You are giving a specific example of law enforcement authority using tactics based on the behavior of people. They know that certain corridors are heavy with illegal immigrants, so they set up a system to catch people. That is a pretty good tactic if you ask me. The law in your state makes it way way too general.

 

 

I don't agree that it makes it too general. Especially the way it's being explained by those behind it. However, as stated this aspect is part that i'm not really that comfortable with due to terms that will need to be defined specific to this law - reasonable suspicion and lawful contact.

 

3)There are already employer sanctions. I don't think this would help at all.

 

Also, you did point out something important. You said they should make it illegal to for an illegal alien to solicit work. You just basically pointed out the reason most illegal aliens are here in the first place - to work. There are jobs here and they want them. There are employers here that want to hire them. Why not just let the free market be free and implement some sort of guest worker program or whatever and recognize the major driver of illegal immigration.

 

Here in AZ the big outcry and defense has been claims of entrapment. The only thing they added to the existing law was entrapment is an affirmative defense and then shaping it further. It should help enforce the existing law by making the defenses clearer.

 

As for free market dynamics, etc that is a much different conversation and goes to immigration as a whole (not to mention dynamics such as wage deflation, denial of benefits, etc) - as of this point there is a system in place to obtain lawful status in the US, there are those who enter lawfully and those who don't - this deals with those who don't and those who illegally choose to employ them

 

5)

So you're saying no one is required to cary an ID, but they can arrest you for not having an id if they have reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally? You've just basically said it's okay to racially profile.

 

I also clarified this as well. In AZ all you have to do is give you honest name, etc prior to this law. However, what would most likely happen is you get brought in for processing for the crime you are going to be charged with (fighting) at which point they verify that what you've told them is correct during the processing.

 

Once again it's not profiling, it's commiting a criminal act that has brought the police to my attention in my scenario. My status wasn't the reason they came over, my characteristics weren't the reason they came over - it was the potential assault.

This will be resolved in the court room. I am very confident it will be ruled unconstitutional.

 

 

It very well may be. My main beef is with those who scream "it's unconsitutional" and then when asked what parts are unconstitutional and why reference a bunch of things that aren't in the law.

My beef with you is that you seem to think simply because you put in a sentence that says "this shall be in compliance with federal law, the constitution, etc." and doesn't say "catch the Mexican" that it won't be held unconstitutional.

 

The reality is that if a policeman wants to he'll come up with whatever excuse necessary to stop someone he thinks is here illegally.

Why are you opposed to it? I am not sure how I feel about it.

I didn't make any statement that it would be upheld or really even comment on that.

 

There are arguements about states being able to take on certain aspects of immigration. In fact, the arizona employer sanction law (which is being amended in this law) has passed a previous court challenge. I know the people who were drafting this really tried to study the scope of what the states can do. This will be tested for sure in this respect and I honestly don't know how it will shake out. However, I'll leave it to the courts to decide if it's consitutional or not. In my personal opinion I would like for the states to have abilities to police their own backyard when the federal government is unwilling to. There is only so many times you can ask for help and receive none before you look for ways to do it yourself.

 

As for point two, there is a provision in the law pertinent to the reasonable suspicion/lawful contact portion that states "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 Unites States citizens."

 

The part that everyone seems to have an issue with and which will be governed by the above is "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state ora county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Secion 1373©."

 

Can that be implemented without profiling. I'm sure it's at least open to debate. Nothing in there would indicate that you are going to have your papers demanded from you at any time for any reason for walking down the stree while brown - which is what a lot of people are contending. We have a lot of issues with drop houses out here, human smuggling, illegal corridors, etc. Right now the local officers are very limited in what they can do when they encounter these situations.

 

IMO, the best case is they gain the flexibility to question the status when there becomes enough stacking of circumstances occurs. IMO the worst case scenario is some a-hole cop going on a fishing mission trying to find illegals. I've been pulled over a few times for driving at 2am during fishing exercises - I know that kind of stuff happens. I also know that the DUI checkpoints and being able to pull someone over when they are actually displaying signs of potential intoxication have helped curb drunk driving and I think on the whole the law enforcement does a fair job in prosecuting this crime.

 

I have aknowledged that there will be a training issue as well.

 

On the 3rd point, I agree. I don't think anything in there criminalizes status. It appears to play the same word games as the example you provided. Most of the law in AZ is procedural in how to handle cooperation between AZ officials and existing federal law and their officials.

 

There is a new part that states if you are found in violation of state or local law AND you are unlawfully present you'll be turned over to the federal government. Someone of unlawful status can be transported to a federal facility by a local agency even if the location of the federal facility is outside the jurisdiction of the local authority, etc.

 

They add some new state violations - like trespassing (which ties directly into the federal law).

 

Status must be determined by the federal authorities.

 

There is existing law that makes human smuggling illegal. This expands on that a little.

 

There is existing law that hiring an undocumented worker is illegal. This expands on that.

 

Makes anew law that it is illegal to impede traffic to essentially pick up day labor. They also make it illegal for someone who does not have status and knows they do not have status to work in this country to sollicit work. Again, it's not their status that is the issue. They aren't in trouble because they're here. They're in trouble because they are not eligible to work here and by working they are in violation. It's the working that is the violation.

 

They create a new law that it is illegal to harbor, transport, etc those that you know have unlawful status.

 

There is existing law about e-verify - this adds guidelines about how long records need to be retained.

 

As stated - i'm not necessarily in favor of this bill - I just don't think a lot of people know what they are upset about. Not necessarily you, but a lot of the more vocal ones that we are hearing are pretty much making things up and saying it as truth.

 

 

By the way, there already have been arrests of people (read: Mexicans or Hispanics) that are not carrying their birth certificate even though they have a drivers license and are actually native born American citizens.

 

Please show me how your little stupid law doesn't cause this.

I agree with you. I don't like it either if the law will require us to carry it. I was under the impression it is designed for employment purposes only - that everyone that is of employment age would have this card that would confirm whether or not you have the authorization to work in the U.S. Basically, it would be used like a social security card.

 

I refuse to carry my passport because I don't think I should have to (not necessarily bc of equal protection reasons). In that sense, I am with you.

By the way, there already have been arrests of people (read: Mexicans or Hispanics) that are not carrying their birth certificate even though they have a drivers license and are actually native born American citizens.

 

Please show me how your little stupid law doesn't cause this.

 

 

because "my" stupid little law isn't even in effect yet................

 

in fact this incident took place on april 21st - two days before the governor signed this bill into law (which then wont take effect for another 90 days)

 

this person also wasn't pulled over - he was at a weigh station

 

the people who questioned him were ICE

 

so all of this is the existing Federal immigration enforcement procedures and not caused by this bill

My beef with you is that you seem to think simply because you put in a sentence that says "this shall be in compliance with federal law, the constitution, etc." and doesn't say "catch the Mexican" that it won't be held unconstitutional.

 

The reality is that if a policeman wants to he'll come up with whatever excuse necessary to stop someone he thinks is here illegally.

 

 

not at all - i'm not saying it's 100% fool proof

 

i'm just not going to go into hysterics on a bunch of hypotheticals

 

we have loons out there comparing AZ to nazi germany - really, doesn't anyone every really get vaildated dropping the nazi card unless you're talking about darfur or some such situation?!

 

i'm willing to wait on the sidelines, let it go through the courts and see what the end result (if anything) looks like

My beef with you is that you seem to think simply because you put in a sentence that says "this shall be in compliance with federal law, the constitution, etc." and doesn't say "catch the Mexican" that it won't be held unconstitutional.

 

The reality is that if a policeman wants to he'll come up with whatever excuse necessary to stop someone he thinks is here illegally.

 

 

not at all - i'm not saying it's 100% fool proof

 

i'm just not going to go into hysterics on a bunch of hypotheticals

 

we have loons out there comparing AZ to nazi germany - really, doesn't anyone every really get vaildated dropping the nazi card unless you're talking about darfur or some such situation?!

 

i'm willing to wait on the sidelines, let it go through the courts and see what the end result (if anything) looks like

I'm opposed to the legislation, but I do think some people are overreacting simply on account of what I mentioned earlier. Isn't most of this already federal law? If I'm not mistaken, it seems people are concerned because they think that the state of Arizona will actually enforce this.

 

it looks like a lot went into trying to mirror a lot of the federal law

 

i'm curious as to see what is left standing from it and what kind of enforcement is done ..... some proponents have stated they hope it's something that they don't need to enforce heavily - that by adding resistance it will remove some of the issue

 

i know that there were reports of improvements after the employer sanction law went into effect, even though there really hasn't been any strong showings of enforcement on that issue

 

there is a big issue here that the federal government really doesn't want to recognize - the smuggling of humans and drugs is creating a large issue, not to mention some of the other side issues that come when you are opening up so many resources to so many people who aren't necessarily paying in

 

phoenix is the #2 kidnapping city behind mexico city - last year there were 359 reported kidnappings and it's estimated that # is only 1/3 of the actual activity .... most of this is related to drug smuggling or human trafficking/drop houses.

 

there was a pinal county deputy shot out in the desert today dealing with drug smugglers - there was a rancher down by the border killed on his property as well

 

within the past couple of days there have been 2 huge marijuana busts near the border and a massive drop house uncovered

 

i'm all for sweeping changes to immigration law at the federal level - guest worker programs with revenue sharing, more streamlines process, etc - i'm also not a huge fan of our drug laws

 

but the reality is those aren't changing anytime soon - there are very real consequences though

 

now I don't think this law will really curb most of that - as stated, i'm pretty skeptical on what it can accomplish .... but I do think it sends a message to the feds that they need to do something to help

 

there was a modification to this law signed in today

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.pdf

 

Below is an excerpt of the bill with amendment containing the changes:

 

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©. 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:

 

A valid Arizona driver license.

A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.

A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

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.

 

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. 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.

 

IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:

 

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE 1373©.

 

http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/arizona-modifies-its-controversial-illegal-immigration-law-april-30-2010/

PhxPhin, whats the consequence of the officer DOES consider race in the decision to check for additional papers? There is no exclusionary principle, so nothing precludes an officer from going on a fishing expedition requesting proper documentation of every single person who looks a certain way. The part above only allowed for a presumption where the license is an Arizona one. What if I have an out of state license?

 

 

And btw, the additional language was added after the furor over the first bill, so clearly they f***ed up and made it way too broad. Do you think if people didnt complain, they wouldnt have tried to amend it?

 

 

Clearly your legislators didn't think this through.

I agree that the situation by the border is really bad. Violence in Mexico is spilling over. In my opinion, we should legalize many (though not all) drugs that are now illegal and regulate it. I think that would have a material affect on on the problems we're seeing.

 

And I also agree we need to have immigration reform. I think we should have free labor markets, by which I mean that an employer ought to be able to hire anyone he wants regardless of nationality and the foreign national should receive permission to work in this country (unless he or she has some kind of criminal past, etc.). As i see it, we have borders, but with all the trading we do the labor borders we have are really artificial and getting in the way. That's my take.

 

If we were to pass this law, instead of spending so much time trying to find and arrest people that have been voluntarily hired by American employers to WORK, we can go after the real bad guys.

Exactly. I agree 100%.

I'm a naturalized US Citizen (born in Brazil), and I'm fairly conservative.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about it at all. Sometimes I'm really glad when the law takes a decisive stance on something to try and protect the interest of American people, but then at the same time I'd feel like a complete hypocrite for ever remotely supporting a law like this. My family came to the US with the best of intentions, to become productive, law abiding, tax-paying members of society--and we've done so. I just think that out there in Arizona, there's gonna be plenty of people like that who are just gonna get crushed by the system, or racially profiled.

 

I'm not 100% sure, but how does this affect the economy? I'm all for whatever decisions helps the economy the most (excluding incredibly reckless or inhumane things...). I don't see how or why we should bend over backwards for the "hungry, tired, and the poor" when we're in an apparent financial crisis ourselves

 

Also, did anyone read about Adrian Gonzalez? Apparently he's super offended about all this, and he's threatening to boycott the All Star Game of 2011 (scheduled for Arizona). Can't find a link right now...

 

EDIT: Apparently Ozzie Guillen too

The major economic drawback of loose immigration policy is the potential for the new immigrants to exploit the welfare state and consume public goods and services without first paying a sufficient amount first through taxation. The solution to this would be to reform the welfare model so it could not be abused. The government needs to make it clear that immigrants will be given an opportunity to earn a living but will be exluded from welfare (and I mean this term loosely) benefits. It simply isn't sustainable for taxpayers to be subsidizing benefits of immigrants.

 

I don't see something like that ever getting passed. Is it even constitutional? I doubt it.

 

Not exactly the same but when California residents passed an amendment to deny illegal immigrants various government services such as education, health care, etc. it was found to be unconstitutional in the courts.