Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law

[Beast]

I haven't been on here in a while, otherwise I would have most likely been on the first page. I have not read all 12 pages so forgive me if i miss something.

 I am one of those who assist with the enforcement of this law. Unfortunately most people, with out legal/enforcement experience, don't understand how the law is enforced. The funniest thing about people making a big stink about this is that the law was written as such that the officer must prove that the person in question has been in the country for more than 30 days. So essentially it brakes down to, let me see you license, registration, proof of insurance and utility bill. No utility bill? Darn.

The system is in place to take car of those who either, have never had a license, don't posses ID/passport or can't provide registration or insurance. It's called arrest. Once they get to the jail their status is checked and from there ICE handles it. In AZ, it is illegal not to present a government issued ID when asked by police.(Failure to provide identification) So people are getting upset over nothing.

Honestly though, illegal is illegal. Not undocumented, not migrant worker or any of the other PC crap that comes from the media and certain government entities.

[Sophus]

So now it goes to the courts.  U S District Judge Susan Bolton ruled against some of the more contentious portions of the Arizona law:

There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.

Reuters story on the ruling.

This will likely go to the 9th Circuit, where I would hazard a guess that Bolton's ruling will be upheld.  Then it will be headed for the Supreme Court.

It's a start. Apparently there's a lot of "hate" in Arizona that people are now protesting, not SB 1070. During one protest During one protest Salvador Reza was arrested for no real reason.

Honestly though, illegal is illegal. Not undocumented, not migrant worker or any of the other PC crap that comes from the media and certain government entities.

It allows officers to stop people of "reasonable suspicion" as well. Or at least it did. If you look back, I think one page, you'll see a link I posted to the story of an American citizen of hispanic heritage who was stopped twice by police officers weeks before the full law was suppose to go into effect.

We've also been discussing whether or not the already existing federal immigration laws themselves or their consequences are rational.

[Beast]

It allows officers to stop people of "reasonable suspicion" as well. Or at least it did. If you look back, I think one page, you'll see a link I posted to the story of an American citizen of hispanic heritage who was stopped twice by police officers weeks before the full law was suppose to go into effect.

We've also been discussing whether or not the already existing federal immigration laws themselves or their consequences are rational.

How do you mean the law allowed to stop for reasonable suspicion? It doesn't even become a thought legally until a stop or contact is made, such as broken tail light, speeding, complaints of loitering..etc.

The federal doesn't do anything because it isn't enforced. Example being, California's immigration law, it has been on the books since the 90's but is not enforced so it doesn't do anything.

Salvador Reza was arrested on the 30th for violating court orders. Don't believe everything you read. I happen to be present to a good portion for arguments of this law. The only hate in AZ is towards the failure of laws to be upheld.

[Sophus]

How do you mean the law allowed to stop for reasonable suspicion? It doesn't even become a thought legally until a stop or contact is made, such as broken tail light, speeding, complaints of loitering..etc.

The federal doesn't do anything because it isn't enforced. Example being, California's immigration law, it has been on the books since the 90's but is not enforced so it doesn't do anything.

Salvador Reza was arrested on the 30th for violating court orders. Don't believe everything you read. I happen to be present to a good portion for arguments of this law. The only hate in AZ is towards the failure of laws to be upheld.

I know how the law is suppose to work in theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. I would encourage you to look at the previous page of this discussion. Especially note Recusant's encounter's with "lawful stops".

Also according to AZ Central, "A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office said deputies arrested Reza for violating the conditions of his release from jail Thursday. Sheriff's officials did not specify what those terms were." Are you aware of what those terms were?

[Beast]

I know how the law is suppose to work in theory, but unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. I would encourage you to look at the previous page of this discussion. Especially note Recusant's encounter's with "lawful stops".

Also according to AZ Central, "A spokesman for the Sheriff's Office said deputies arrested Reza for violating the conditions of his release from jail Thursday. Sheriff's officials did not specify what those terms were." Are you aware of what those terms were?

If you are not the one enforcing such laws you would not know either way. Just to humor you, how do you think it actually works?

Conditions of his release was the court order I was referring to. I am not at liberty to discuss certain things due to my employer's policies.

[Sophus]

If you are not the one enforcing such laws you would not know either way. Just to humor you, how do you think it actually works?

Conditions of his release was the court order I was referring to. I am not at liberty to discuss certain things due to my employer's policies.

This is what I was hoping you would read.

[Beast]

I did see that and to be totally honest it seems all like bull. The first instance he gave, the bike lane, that is completely right. If you are traveling in the bike lane then a cop would be neglecting his duties by not checking you out.

As to racial profiling, our command makes it very well known racial profiling will not be tolerated. If it is found an officer is using this method there are severe punishments. There have already been dozens of complaints by citizens like Recusant, who believe the cops are out to get everyone but whitey, and every single one of them has come to be found with no merit by third party investigations.

And once again if you didn't understand it the first time, if someone does something illegal that equals a crime. Like I said if have not worked law enforcement you won't know what the application of any law is actually like.

[Sophus]

In my experience not all police officers are perfect angels. Especially when it comes to stereotyping. SB 1070 is begging to be abused, as legal citizen's will and have already been racial profiled. And Arpaio's sweeps are really starting to smell fishy. Not to mention there are other aspects of the law which do more than simply mirror federal immigration law.

[Beast]

In my experience not all police officers are perfect angels. Especially when it comes to stereotyping. SB 1070 is begging to be abused, as legal citizen's will and have already been racial profiled. Not to mention there are other aspects of the law which do more than simply mirror federal immigration law.

That's the thing with opponents to this. No evidence for their claims and constantly over looking the facts. An officer couldn't even charge someone under this law with out being able to prove they have been present in the country for at least 30 days. So what would even be the point of racial profiling if they can't verify their length of stay in the country. Besides the fact that we have had someone from nearly every corner of the globe deported due to immigration status. We have had English deported, they were white), so I guess it wasn't a white cop who stopped them.

Honestly look at all the other laws that police have to deal with. Why is it you would trust them to deal with everything else except for this. And again if you don't know how to apply it you really can't have an educated view.

Maybe a scenario would help? This is from a more recent experience:
6pm, we are driving in to the sun, observer a vehicle traveling in the same direction(can't see the driver, rarely can) Giant sticker in the front window obstructing the drivers view(Equipment violation) pull over.
Typical Q's, Lic, Reg, Proof of Ins.
Driver does not have a Lic. Reg is to a different person, no Proof of Ins. or any form of ID(This would arouse suspicion)
Driver does not speak English(Reasonable suspicion exists that the driver is in this country illegally)
Q's continue.
Driver provides personal information, no record comes back(not registered immigrant/provided false info)
Q's again
Driver confirms the information is correct but is here illegally.(Right there would be arrest for numerous violations from earlier)
If the driver admits to being in the country for 30+ days or happens to have a utility bill or the like(1070), if not then he is arrested for the violations at hand and once to jail processing confirms he is illegal and then County Attorney's Office follows up with the charges.

[Sophus]

An officer couldn't even charge someone under this law with out being able to prove they have been present in the country for at least 30 days.

That's irrelevant to whether or not a legal citizens and/or resident aliens will be stopped and asked for identification. Things like this go on without this law in place, even in states like mine. Are you insisting instances like this never happen at all? I'm sure you do your job perfectly well, along with a good number of other officers, however, the same cannot be said of all law enforcers.

My "uneducated view" seems to agree with the judge's ruling:

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

Honestly look at all the other laws that police have to deal with. Why is it you would trust them to deal with everything else except for this.

I really don't trust law enforcement with a number of thing but that's another issue.    But this issue is not just a matter of what is lawful but also what is constitutional.

ALSO: I wasn't able to edit my previous post in time when I added this link. It sounds very very suspicious to me.

[Recusant]

I did see that and to be totally honest it seems all like bull. The first instance he gave, the bike lane, that is completely right. If you are traveling in the bike lane then a cop would be neglecting his duties by not checking you out.

Hello, Beast.  I don't think that we've ever conversed here before.  Let me just say, that if you're in law enforcement, I respect the fact that you have a tough job, and I commend you for trying to do it well.  Now to your post--

I was describing two recent examples of a long history of interacting with police officers.  Probably at least 30 instances, and that's being conservative.  I've only been arrested once, back in 1981 I think it was, for smoking weed on the street.  I'm actually Caucasian.  But I look like a freak, and to be honest, I guess I actually am one.  However, I'm not stupid, and I've got some street smarts.  I guess you mis-read my bike lane story.  I was riding a bike in the bike lane, and had both front and rear lights.  I was not intoxicated, and was riding normally.  There was absolutely no reason for the officer to pull me over, other than to check me out.  He didn't ask me where I had come from, only where I was going. (As he might have, for instance, if he'd gotten a report of somebody on a bike in the area who had done something.)  I can only assume that, like many cops I've had the dubious honor of speaking with before in similar circumstances, he simply didn't like my looks. This is a type of profiling that I can actually understand; freaky looking people are also many times law-breakers.  My point being, an officer really doesn't need an objective reason to make a stop.  It's very easy to lie (don't tell me police officers don't lie; we both know that's not the case) and concoct an excuse to stop somebody.  So an officer under the Arizona law could (and you know at least some of them will, if the law is upheld) engage in racial profiling, and get away with it, simply because of the way the law is written. The Arizona law (unwritten, between the lines, but still there for any who have half a brain to see it) encourages racial profiling.  Notwithstanding official statements, both to the public, and to law enforcement, that racial profiling will not be tolerated.  

This (attempting to chase down illegal immigrants) is simply going at the problem from the wrong end.  There should be much stricter penalties for employing illegal immigrants.  Take away the main incentive to migrate to the US, and, though the issue won't be completely resolved, it will be cut down to much more manageable levels.

[Beast]

That's irrelevant to whether or not a legal citizens and/or resident aliens will be stopped and asked for identification. Things like this go on without this law in place, even in states like mine. Are you insisting instances like this never happen at all? I'm sure you do your job perfectly well, along with a good number of other officers, however, the same cannot be said of all law enforcers.

My "uneducated view" seems to agree with the judge's ruling:

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law]. ... By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

ALSO: I wasn't able to edit my previous post in time when I added this link. It sounds very very suspicious to me.

I don't have enough information from that AZcentral site to brake it down and understand it. I hear these sorts of things everyday. However, until the other side of any story if found it really doesn't matter much. Not to say that they are lying. I don't work for ICE so I don't know what their procedures are, by the way that is a federal agency, not from AZ. everyone pulled over is asked for their ID, but as far as the BC goes we have never asked for one.

As for the Arpaio thing, that's nothing new. He doesn't run his office like Phoenix, picking and choosing what they will enforce. LE should not play politics, their sole responsibility is to enforce the laws, all of them. A minority of people don't like that Arpaio does the job no one else wants to do.

Oddly enough it is the minority on both sides of the links you bring up that screw everything for the better side. The news will only publish something to increase ratings. So even the 1% of cops, who are the d-bags, get way more attention then the rest, but it gets a story. It's something like 70% approve of Arpaio and 1070.

I did see that and to be totally honest it seems all like bull. The first instance he gave, the bike lane, that is completely right. If you are traveling in the bike lane then a cop would be neglecting his duties by not checking you out.

Hello, Beast.  I don't think that we've ever conversed here before.  Let me just say, that if you're in law enforcement, I respect the fact that you have a tough job, and I commend you for trying to do it well.  Now to your post--

I was describing two recent examples of a long history of interacting with police officers.  Probably at least 30 instances, and that's being conservative.  I've only been arrested once, back in 1981 I think it was, for smoking weed on the street.  I'm actually Caucasian.  But I look like a freak, and to be honest, I guess I actually am one.  However, I'm not stupid, and I've got some street smarts.  I guess you mis-read my bike lane story.  I was riding a bike in the bike lane, and had both front and rear lights.  I was not intoxicated, and was riding normally.  There was absolutely no reason for the officer to pull me over, other than to check me out.  He didn't ask me where I had come from, only where I was going. (As he might have, for instance, if he'd gotten a report of somebody on a bike in the area who had done something.)  I can only assume that, like many cops I've had the dubious honor of speaking with before in similar circumstances, he simply didn't like my looks. This is a type of profiling that I can actually understand; freaky looking people are also many times law-breakers.  My point being, an officer really doesn't need an objective reason to make a stop.  It's very easy to lie (don't tell me police officers don't lie; we both know that's not the case) and concoct an excuse to stop somebody.  So an officer under the Arizona law could (and you know at least some of them will, if the law is upheld) engage in racial profiling, and get away with it, simply because of the way the law is written. The Arizona law (unwritten, between the lines, but still there for any who have half a brain to see it) encourages racial profiling.  Notwithstanding official statements, both to the public, and to law enforcement, that racial profiling will not be tolerated.  

This (attempting to chase down illegal immigrants) is simply going at the problem from the wrong end.  There should be much stricter penalties for employing illegal immigrants.  Take away the main incentive to migrate to the US, and, though the issue won't be completely resolved, it will be cut down to much more manageable levels.

We have not and thank you.

I did misread that then, I understood it as if you were driving. Don't get me wrong, by no means am I saying all cops are perfect, they are human. I can offer the best examples as how me department handles everything and I know very well there are several F'ed up agencies out there.

As for employers, most people seemed to have missed this too. AZ has employer sanctions laws(last big woopty doo of immigration laws and that went through the court system as well, up held), with that very intention in mind, unfortunately there are agencies like Phoenix, as I stated above, who pick and choose what laws to enforce. That is one reason I do like portions of 1070 because there are provisions to punish the agencies who aren't enforcing it. I think it should be that way for all laws, but I don't get to write them. If the agencies were forced to enforce the existing employer sanctions laws, 1070 would not have been needed.

There was a similar outcry by immigrant rights and civil bs groups when the employer sanctions was passed, just not as well televised.

Sophus and Recusant, I am sure I missed something, wore out from today's shift. So if I did just point it out and please forgive the spelling errors.  

[Sophus]

I hear these sorts of things everyday. However, until the other side of any story if found it really doesn't matter much. Not to say that they are lying. I don't work for ICE so I don't know what their procedures are, by the way that is a federal agency, not from AZ. everyone pulled over is asked for their ID, but as far as the BC goes we have never asked for one.

As is the case with anything I am sure there are some individuals who might lie about such a thing to play victim so as to cover up actually doing something wrong. However, like yourself, I hear similar things quite often. Doubtfully is it one big conspiracy.

As for the Arpaio thing, that's nothing new. He doesn't run his office like Phoenix, picking and choosing what they will enforce. LE should not play politics, their sole responsibility is to enforce the laws, all of them. A minority of people don't like that Arpaio does the job no one else wants to do.

Oddly enough it is the minority on both sides of the links you bring up that screw everything for the better side. The news will only publish something to increase ratings. So even the 1% of cops, who are the d-bags, get way more attention then the rest, but it gets a story. It's something like 70% approve of Arpaio and 1070.

I don't think much of approval ratings. The minority almost always must wait for a court ruling (as seems to be the case with SB 1070) to get equality because when you put such matters to a vote the majority does what they please, regardless if it is truly constitutional. Arpaio is refusing to cooperate with a civil rights investigation again (was there not an earlier case when documents were all conveniently shredded and emails deleted?)

As for the "show me your papers" part, it's not the requirement of the papers themselves which are the problem (that has already been a federal law). My concern is the AZ law makes it a misdemeanor crime for an alien to not have them.

That is one reason I do like portions of 1070 because there are provisions to punish the agencies who aren't enforcing it. I think it should be that way for all laws, but I don't get to write them. If the agencies were forced to enforce the existing employer sanctions laws, 1070 would not have been needed.

This is actually one of the biggest problems I have with it. It's already a sue happy world and whether or not someone is doing everything within their power to enforce the law is all too subjective. This part is also another example of how it the law does more than simply mirror pre-existing federal law. A State does not have the power to do this.

[Kylyssa]

So the law is strictly to be applied only in situations when a law is being broken such as when a person gets pulled over for speeding and never when a person is obeying all of the laws?  So it's perfectly safe for American citizens of Mexican ancestry to drive around, hang out in the park, or walk their dogs in Arizona without any fear they'll be asked for proof of citizenship?  There's no chance at all that Mexican American teens too young to have drivers licenses will get detained or harassed by LEOs?

And of course you can't ask passengers in a car during a traffic stop if they can prove their citizen or legal alien status, right?  

Can't police in every other state check a person's ID when that person is caught committing a crime or a traffic violation?

[Beast]

I don't think much of approval ratings. The minority almost always must wait for a court ruling (as seems to be the case with SB 1070) to get equality because when you put such matters to a vote the majority does what they please, regardless if it is truly constitutional. Arpaio is refusing to cooperate with a civil rights investigation again (was there not an earlier case when documents were all conveniently shredded and emails deleted?)

As for the "show me your papers" part, it's not the requirement of the papers themselves which are the problem (that has already been a federal law). My concern is the AZ law makes it a misdemeanor crime for an alien to not have them.


This is actually one of the biggest problems I have with it. It's already a sue happy world and whether or not someone is doing everything within their power to enforce the law is all too subjective. This part is also another example of how it the law does more than simply mirror pre-existing federal law. A State does not have the power to do this.

Mostly all the MCSO stuff is coming from the Board of Supervisors(total waste of space). The most recent one you are thinking of was the BoS suing for 50,000 emails and documentation to be gathered in a week. I would have told them to 'F' off also. And not that Napolitano is in with the feds, there is more BS coming from them. Nothing has ever been sustained against the Office. Any time you here them settling in out of court and what not, that is because the Insurance provider says it would be cheaper to settle instead of go through the lengthy court process. Most people don't know that about govt. settlements.

Ever hear of States's rights? The way everything was originally founded was a loose association between states with minor federal over sight. That's why laws vary so much from state to state. Now some people think the federal govt. should have it all, I'd say "hell no" to that, they can't anything straight or enforce many of their laws.

It is illegal no matter your citizenship/alien status to not have ID with you and be able to provide it when ask. Federal law does require all aliens to carry their passport with them at all times and provide it when asked.

So the law is strictly to be applied only in situations when a law is being broken such as when a person gets pulled over for speeding and never when a person is obeying all of the laws?  So it's perfectly safe for American citizens of Mexican ancestry to drive around, hang out in the park, or walk their dogs in Arizona without any fear they'll be asked for proof of citizenship?  There's no chance at all that Mexican American teens too young to have drivers licenses will get detained or harassed by LEOs?

And of course you can't ask passengers in a car during a traffic stop if they can prove their citizen or legal alien status, right?  

Can't police in every other state check a person's ID when that person is caught committing a crime or a traffic violation?

Correct.

Minors with out lic. will get detained no matter what background they are, do it all the time. Same for adults, but usually that ends in arrest.

Passengers can't not be required to provide proof of citizenship, only ID and passport if necessary. As far as I know every state requires that ID be carried by everyone above a certain age, varies between states.