Slashdot Mirror

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY 31
CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 32
THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR 33
ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS 34
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW 35
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 36
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 37
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 38
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL 39
IDENTIFICATION. 40
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 41
BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 42
ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. 43

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Other identifiers that Arizona law specifically states you are not required to give.

A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

Please see text: SB1070

There is a lot there to criticize, however it might be helpful to actually read it first.

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

In Arizona the law states that you only have to give your full name.

Let's imagine someone suspicious is hanging around a vacant storefront and the LEO thinks they're casing the joint (a la Terry v. Ohio). The LEO has reasonable suspicion to detain him. The LEO asks the person to identify himself. He complies and with a heavy accent gives his name as Juan Gonzales. He declines to furnish ID. A frisk doesn't reveal any contraband.

The LEO observes that in the strip mall where the stop took place there is a Home Depot and illegal aliens regularly gather to solicit work as day laborers. In conjunction with the man's ethnicity and accent this enables (requires?) the LEO to ask the man about his citizenship status. As is his right, the man refuses to answer any further questions. Can the LEO arrest him?

I'm reading over the law again and it says, "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." We know that if you're driving you are required to present a drivers license, but in any other situation, what happens if you refuse to answer immigration status questions?

Lets say that the LEO arrests the man. Eventually it turns out that Juan is a US citizen. Were his rights violated?

In Arizona the law states that you only have to give your full name.

Let's imagine someone suspicious is hanging around a vacant storefront and the LEO thinks they're casing the joint (a la Terry v. Ohio). The LEO has reasonable suspicion to detain him. The LEO asks the person to identify himself. He complies and with a heavy accent gives his name as Juan Gonzales. He declines to furnish ID. A frisk doesn't reveal any contraband.

The LEO observes that in the strip mall where the stop took place there is a Home Depot and illegal aliens regularly gather to solicit work as day laborers. In conjunction with the man's ethnicity and accent this enables (requires?) the LEO to ask the man about his citizenship status. As is his right, the man refuses to answer any further questions. Can the LEO arrest him?

I'm reading over the law again and it says, "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." We know that if you're driving you are required to present a drivers license, but in any other situation, what happens if you refuse to answer immigration status questions?

Lets say that the LEO arrests the man. Eventually it turns out that Juan is a US citizen. Were his rights violated?

You are right, it is confusing. When a bill is being worked on I often find myself calling down to the capital and asking for help. Also, I find the ALIS system to be helpful only about 60% of the time.

The law specifically states that an AZ drivers' license proves legal U.S. residency status.

The law specifically states that an AZ drivers' license -is- proof of citizenship, enough to satisfy this law.

Is there such a thing as a US drivers' license?

The law specifically states that an AZ drivers' license is sufficient to establish legal status.

The link you cite is to the set of proposed house amendments to the senate bill but I do not think this was actual law signed by the governor.

I believe it is either this version or this version but i have not been able to find a definitive answer.

inquiring minds want to know.

The link you cite is to the set of proposed house amendments to the senate bill but I do not think this was actual law signed by the governor.

I believe it is either this version or this version but i have not been able to find a definitive answer.

inquiring minds want to know.

It's not about birth certificates. Read the law. Most forms of government-issued ID are acceptable.

ICE are feds, not AZ law enforcement.

The law itself prevents police from stopping someone simply because they look different. They can only question you about your immigration status if they've stopped you for something else first.

Here's an excellent analysis of myths surrounding this law, first posted by pilsner.urquell.

Citizens generally don't carry documentation around with them.

Do you carry a driver's license?

That's all you need.

Read the law.

Do you carry a driver's license?

That's all you need.

Read the law.

Do you have a drivers' license on you?

That's all you need.

Read the law.

Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship.

From the text in question:

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:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

...

4. 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.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this, it does clearly mention a driver's license as something which presumes ones not to be "an alien who is unlawfully" in the US.

You've linked a fact sheet, dated Jan. 15, 2010, discussing an earlier version of the bill.

The summary of the bill as transmitted to the governor is here.

The correct link for the text of the House engrossed Senate bill is here.

"For any lawful contact 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 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."

Apparently, your argument is that pulling someone over for "driving while brown" will be upheld as "lawful contact." No, the courts won't allow this. The officer better have valid legal reason for initiating contact. And I think that there will be lawyers from the ACLU, SPLC, and/or other non-profits slobbering all over themselves to take the first case that goes anywhere near the line.

The law says that race may be a factor, but it may not only be an only factor. Of course this is laughable -- people will be stopped for race, and cops will find (or create) additional evidence after-the-fact.

Check the second link. Apparently this sort of language is already on the books in Arizona for -- at least -- employment of "unauthorized aliens" (halfway down the page - Sec. 8. Section 23-212.01, Arizona revised statutes). Perhaps you can point to cases where *that* has been abused?

You've linked a fact sheet, dated Jan. 15, 2010, discussing an earlier version of the bill.

The summary of the bill as transmitted to the governor is here.

The correct link for the text of the House engrossed Senate bill is here.

"For any lawful contact 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 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."

Apparently, your argument is that pulling someone over for "driving while brown" will be upheld as "lawful contact." No, the courts won't allow this. The officer better have valid legal reason for initiating contact. And I think that there will be lawyers from the ACLU, SPLC, and/or other non-profits slobbering all over themselves to take the first case that goes anywhere near the line.

The law says that race may be a factor, but it may not only be an only factor. Of course this is laughable -- people will be stopped for race, and cops will find (or create) additional evidence after-the-fact.

Check the second link. Apparently this sort of language is already on the books in Arizona for -- at least -- employment of "unauthorized aliens" (halfway down the page - Sec. 8. Section 23-212.01, Arizona revised statutes). Perhaps you can point to cases where *that* has been abused?

Whatever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Has anyone else noticed that laws seem to be slowly changing to produce a presumption of guilt (requiring a proof of innocence) these days?

Has anyone even bothered to read the bill? Or is everyone knee-jerking to CNN and other media outlets? Here is the bill (PDF). I suggest you read it. I've read it twice, and while I am not a lawyer, in a nutshell, all it says regarding "checking papers" is that if a cop had a lawful contact with someone, ie. they are pulled over, or being arrested for something else, if the cop has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegal, (the cops in Arizona have a pretty good idea of who is illegal based on a number of factors including no ID at all and being evasive, and yes, not speaking English, but not speaking English is simply another factor) but the law absolutely does not allow a cop to simple approach someone that think is illegal. It requires some other contact first. If the cop thinks that the person is illegal, the law tells the cop to enforce the already existing for many years immigration laws. The cops aren't going to be stopping people on the street who are "brown" to check for "papers". In face the law specifically states: "This act 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 United States citizens."

I fail to understand what the problem with a law that tells the cops to enforce the already existing immigration laws are. If you have a problem with that, then you should talk to your congressman about repealing the federal immigration laws...

Hmm... let's see if you actually know what this bill says...

Moreover... they can't just ask you for no reason, there has to be reasonable suspicion...

Yes .. suspicion of being an illigal immigrant. Now, please explain to me what activity makes you suspicious under this law? On second though, let's just continue...

...race, or country of origin is NOT acceptable for reason of suspicion

Wrong! Wow, you didn't even get past your first sentence without saying something that is totally, completely false. In fact, race may be a factor. The law only states that it can't be the only factor. What do you want to bet that these other, non-race related factors get cooked up *after* you get stopped?

The more people I talk to the more I'm amazed that they haven't the faintest clue what is actually in this bill.

Final version of the law. There is a lot of misconceptions and wild rumors circulating about this legislation. This article points out a few of them.

In the past this was true, but this law exists specifically to remove that stipulation. Please read the legislation. You may be stopped "upon reasonable suspicion that an entity is not legally allowed to live within the country".

Perhaps you're confusing this with with the evidence criteria provision. The law says that race may be a factor, but it may not only be an only factor. Of course this is laughable -- people will be stopped for race, and cops will find (or create) additional evidence after-the-fact.

It's telling that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes this law, as they believe it will erode trust with immigrants and distract police from more serious threats.

So what? I mean, really, so-fucking-what? The illegal problem is of epidemic proportions here. I've experienced it first hand on numerous occasions; just last month I was at the hospital with my grandmother and withing 10 minutes, 2 separate people came into the emergency room with no ID (no Drivers license, no state ID, no green card, nothing) and no insurance so they get treated on the state's dime and not even a billing address to send a bill.

The feds are clearly too engrossed in courting a potential major voting block to do anything about it. I say good job to the AZ legislature. It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal. This applies to everybody. Now obviously, the majority of illegals will be Mexican or Central American in origin: It's not like we have a bunch of illegal Canadian's down here, eh, but that doesn't make it racist in any way shape or form.

I'll save you the trouble of searching the internet for the bill. Here it is, it's not that long: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf I don't see anything in there about Mexicans, do you?

Actually, according to the Constitution (10th Amendment):

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

Since the US Constitution says nothing about prisons save for prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment", as long as Arpaio does not cross the line into "cruel", harshness is definitely allowed. Arizona's constitution says nothing about prisons. Arizona's law (a href="http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=31">Title 31) deals with prisons and the duties of Sheriffs, but within those provisions, counties have quite a wide latitude on how lenient/harsh they wish to be.

I hope you have learned something today.

This started in 1913 with the passage of the Income Tax Amendment AND the Federal Reserve Act.

At this point, the government had a higher power - a bank - and the means to confiscate wealth at an alarming rate.

Things were quiet - even including the Great Depression, the only notable happening was the Fed grabbed some more power to prevent it from happening again (lets see how that worked out).

Then in 1945 Congress passed the Victory Tax act. This was an unconstitutional law that actually taxed people's individual wages. But in patriotic America, no one date question it, like the invasion of Iraq. The law was repealed two years later before anyone dare challenge it and replaced with one that was constitutional.

The precedent was set though - Through a Patriotic Campaign people were convinced to pay taxes on their "wages". Forms were set up and (W-2, W-4, etc) and used to collect the unconstitutional tax. After the Victory Tax Act was replaced, the precedent had been set, and a large wage tax the database established. The forms were kept the same, so no one was the wiser.

Today you can read for yourself the constitutional definitions in 3401 and 3121 of title 26. Note the definition of wages" "employment", "United States", and "State". If you doubt the meaning of "United States" contrast it with 4612.

Further more, Senator Bailey, the biggest income tax proponent had this to say:
"I have no hesitation in declaring that a tax on any useful occupation cannot be defended in any forum of conscience or of common sense. To
tax a man for trying to make a living for his family is such a patent and gross injustice that it should deter any legislature from perpetrating it." 44 Congressional Record 1702 (1909)

Well, Senator Bailey had no idea just how bad things would get. After WWII, we had a great sense of accomplishment. But we found ourselves in a cold war, and quickly moved into the Korean and Vietnam wars. All the while the expectations and budgets increased.

We are incredibly guilty of this today. We have run up a $10T deficit, and we owe it to the Federal Reserve. Our money is has dropped to 1/25 its value, by moving from US Notes to Federal Reserve Notes.

It is our demands on the government that are to blame. Before we were all paying federal income taxes (and specifically the wage tax) there could be no consolidation of power in Washington DC. But now they have a vacuum into every household of America, called the wage tax which allows them to control both sides of the equation. This is very attractive target for lobbyists. Once you only have one city to work in, you have less to concentrate on and can do so much more effectively rather than persuade hundreds in state legislatures everywhere.

But still I continue to blame us. We must reject the idea of government being the solution. It has proven that unless it is war, it is not. All the solutions have come at a cost to future generations. They don't fix the problem they just sweep it under the rug for future generations. If we relied on government less, we'd not have to worry about these gross abuses of power because 1) they couldn't afford it. and 2) no one would pay attention.

Recently several states sent letters to Washington reminding D.C. that state sovereignty still exists:
Washington State
Arizona
Oklahoma

19. "Medicine" means allopathic medicine as practiced by the recipient of a degree of doctor of medicine.

- AZRS 32-1401. Definitions