Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law

[Sophus]

We're less than 10 days away from seeing this law enacted (July 29th). I got a chance to read the law itself. It's rather vague and confusing, and I don't think it's only because I'm not a lawyer. If a person is arrested police are required to ask, "papers please?" if there is any "reasonable suspicion". With this I am fine with, although I don't see why they don't drop "reasonable suspicion" and just do a check on everyone. Who knows? Maybe they're an illegal alien from elsewhere.

There also other counts on which an officer must do this. This is where things get sticky.

It reads "for any lawful contact made by a law enforcement officer 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" ARTICLE 8, Section B. Emphasis my own.

What then is lawful contact? It never defines it. Is being pulled over in traffic lawful contact? Is going to the police because you've been mugged lawful contact? It says any lawful contact, apparently this must be broad. And note this is kept separate from Article 8, Section C which goes on to define the first acceptable instance I mentioned in which an officer may perform this (if they've been arrested for breaking the law).
I know a teenage girl who was returning home from a party at night and she had her Hispanic friends (yes they are legal citizens) in the car with her. She was pulled over for questioning, asked what she was doing "hanging around them". Is that lawful contact?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Constitution itself applies to all inside our borders, be they citizens or no.  That's why jihadis are held in Gitmo ()not to derail).

[Sophus]

The Constitution itself applies to all inside our borders, be they citizens or no.  That's why jihadis are held in Gitmo ()not to derail).

You're right and from what I can tell this law violates the Ninth Amendment. Police need no warrant.

[Sophus]

Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

[TheJackel]

Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

This is still being debated?.. I am curious though, how exactly do you prevent illegal aliens if you are afraid to even check an ID?.. There is a rather large do nothing crowd out there who are too afraid to hurt someones pride, or feelings if they get checked for illegal immigration.

[pinkocommie]

Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

This is still being debated?.. I am curious though, how exactly do you prevent illegal aliens if you are afraid to even check an ID?.. There is a rather large do nothing crowd out there who are too afraid to hurt someones pride, or feelings if they get checked for illegal immigration.

Personally I'm not a big fan of 'If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us taking a look' approach to infringing on freedoms.  I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I have to prove it by voluntarily giving up my right to not be hassled.

[Sophus]

This is still being debated?..

What I was disproving were the conservative claims that they can only check if you've been arrested. In fact it's not. They can check for "lawful stops, detention, or arrest". And I agree pinko. I want to go on with my life unhassled by racial profiling (not that I've ever had to because I'm white). Besides, this law does not comply with the Ninth Amendment.

[TheJackel]

Oops! I would like to take a chance and correct myself. I just found this version of the law which shows the changes made in green. "Lawfull contact" has been changed to "lawful stop". I think this affirms my suspicions. These stops are likely to often be less than lawful.

This is also a good resource which helps explain how Arizona's Law does not simply mirror Federal Law:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

This is still being debated?.. I am curious though, how exactly do you prevent illegal aliens if you are afraid to even check an ID?.. There is a rather large do nothing crowd out there who are too afraid to hurt someones pride, or feelings if they get checked for illegal immigration.

Personally I'm not a big fan of 'If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us taking a look' approach to infringing on freedoms.  I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I have to prove it by voluntarily giving up my right to not be hassled.

I don't think looking at someones Legal status during a traffic stop is really anything to cry about. Essentially why would you care if they look into your legal status? You do realize that they also check your ID for warrants during these times too correct? Or should that be infringement on you freedoms? Remember, the Federal government and illegals created this problem by coming here. This is like how software piracy created the hassle of DRM.  

However, there is a better solution to this problem by letting states enforce ID verification with businesses. All you really need to do is take the job market away by prosecuting companies for just having illegal workers knowingly. Force companies to do positive ID verification for every employee within 30 days of hire, or something to that effect.

[Sophus]

Jackel it's not suppose to matter if you or I would or would not feel injusticed by this if it were us this law would be affecting. Many will and it is their Constitutional right under the Fourth ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...")and the Ninth Amendment, to not be stopped for looking different. That right is suppose to be inalienable. Regrettably, the AZ Law is already taking affect, for example:

url=http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/why-arizonas-show-me-your-papers-law-must-be-stopped]ACLU[/url]"]Shortly after the law was passed in May, the ACLU brought a legal challenge to it with several other civil rights organizations. One of the plaintiffs in our challenge is Jim Shee, a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers." If the Arizona police are already exhibiting this behavior, it's pretty easy to see that this extreme law, which practically begs police to engage in racial profiling, will lead to unnecessary police harassment of citizens based solely on the fact that they may look or sound like they are foreign. How else would police form a suspicion that someone was not in the U.S. legally?

This will hurt Arizona because a number of hard-working non-Caucasian looking citizens will not tolerate this burden and will move elsewhere. As this man has stated he is already considering if the law is not stopped.

[Recusant]

First, I would like to thank you, Sophus, for taking the time to read the law and relate what you've learned, and for the links.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think looking at someones Legal status during a traffic stop is really anything to cry about. Essentially why would you care if they look into your legal status?

I think you give a bit more credit to law enforcement for impartiality than they deserve. I've been pulled over more than a couple of times for questioning by "Officer Sir" because of the way I look.  They always had a good excuse, and were more than willing to lie straight to my face.  Two examples, but as I said, I've had several nice chats with police officers, and rolled away from them, after being stopped for no actual reason other than they thought I looked suspicious:

You really need to be riding in the bike lane.

I knew perfectly well that I had been in the bike lane for the last mile or so, and was in it when the officer pulled up to me.  I also knew that my only reasonable response was to say, "Thank you for the reminder."  As politely as possible.  We both knew that I'd been in the bike lane, and the only reason he'd pulled me over was to check me out; see if I seemed to have been drinking or imbibing of illegal substances.  To see if I was foolish enough to give him some guff for harassing me.  I got pulled over simply because of the way I look, but as a police officer, it's not hard to come up with a bogus reason, and see where the situation takes you.

Driving an older pickup with up to date registration, and all lights functioning except one of the two license plate lights. (The other had been removed to use the wiring as a hookup for trailer running lights.)  Pulled over for the missing light, even though the single light meant that the truck was legally compliant. (Lots of older vehicles only have one license plate light.) We had a little talk, and I said, "Yes, I'll get that fixed as soon as I can."  Once again, the officer wanted to check me out, and came up with a "reason" that would cover his ass.

So in effect, this law will result in racial profiling, and we all know it.  In fact, on a right-wing forum to which I belong, it's said right out that there's nothing wrong with racial profiling, "because it works."

Is this (and my experiences with The Man) an infringement of freedom? Well, it's kind of a gray area I suppose, but stuff like this constitutes the first steps toward a police state. You may not see it that way, Jackel, but try being stopped arbitrarily (more than a few times) because of the way you look, and see how you feel about it. Law enforcement has enough serious crime to be dealing with.  We don't need them to be out stopping Latinos and checking papers.  And as I said, I think we all know that's exactly what will happen. It seems to me that it's either naive or disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

However, there is a better solution to this problem by letting states enforce ID verification with businesses. All you really need to do is take the job market away by prosecuting companies for just having illegal workers knowingly. Force companies to do positive ID verification for every employee within 30 days of hire, or something to that effect.

I agree with you on this, without question.  Tell it to the US Chamber of Commerce, or your state or national representatives.  The current laws are fairly lenient on business owners.  Even when convicted, the most common sentence is something like a couple of years probation and a fine, as can be seen in this story:

...a Houston rag exporter called Action Rags USA was raided, resulting in the arrest of 150 immigrants. Owner Mubarik Kahlon was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $6,000 fine. The list of comparably light sentence cases goes on virtually without variation.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jackel it's not suppose to matter if you or I would or would not feel injusticed by this if it were us this law would be affecting. Many will and it is their Constitutional right under the Fourth ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...")and the Ninth Amendment, to not be stopped for looking different. That right is suppose to be inalienable. Regrettably, the AZ Law is already taking affect, for example:

url=http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/why-arizonas-show-me-your-papers-law-must-be-stopped]ACLU[/url]"]Shortly after the law was passed in May, the ACLU brought a legal challenge to it with several other civil rights organizations. One of the plaintiffs in our challenge is Jim Shee, a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers." If the Arizona police are already exhibiting this behavior, it's pretty easy to see that this extreme law, which practically begs police to engage in racial profiling, will lead to unnecessary police harassment of citizens based solely on the fact that they may look or sound like they are foreign. How else would police form a suspicion that someone was not in the U.S. legally?

This will hurt Arizona because a number of hard-working non-Caucasian looking citizens will not tolerate this burden and will move elsewhere. As this man has stated he is already considering if the law is not stopped.

The law in 24 states requires all people to identify themselves to police officers upon request.  To my knowledge, the presentation of an ID card is not required.  I may well be behind the times on this, though.

[Sophus]

The law in 24 states requires all people to identify themselves to police officers upon request.  To my knowledge, the presentation of an ID card is not required.  I may well be behind the times on this, though.

Obviously I can't blame you for not seeing it  :bananacolor:

This issue only interests me so much much because this law may be coming to my state.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I'm not trying to paste a position you don't hold on  you, just bringing up what I think is a fair point.  Sorry if I missed your priority.

Here in California, for a long time an adult could receive a ticket for not possessing govt-issued ID.

Don't know if that's still the case.

[Sophus]

Yeah, I'm not trying to paste a position you don't hold on  you, just bringing up what I think is a fair point.  Sorry if I missed your priority.

Here in California, for a long time an adult could receive a ticket for not possessing govt-issued ID.

Don't know if that's still the case.

From what I hear, while those laws exist their enforcement is rare. As with other states. I don't know if it's true though.

[Recusant]

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.