Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers

dcblogs writes "H-1B workers and foreign students may think twice about attending school or working in Arizona as a result of the state's new immigration law. If a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the immigration status of someone, the officer may ask to see proof of legal status. Federal immigration law requires all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, to carry documentation, but 'no state until Arizona has made it a crime to not have that paperwork on your person,' said immigration lawyer Sarah Hawk. It means that an H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal). The potential tech backlash over the law may have begun yesterday with a call by San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera 'to adopt and implement a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses.'"

Comments

What about the presumption of innocence?

[NewtonsLaw]

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?

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[lena_10326]

Given that you'll probably serve 3+ months in jail waiting to find out that you are indeed innocent still feels like a 3+ month prison sentence no matter how you spin it.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[BountyX]

I think you are misunderstanding that presumption. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Anyone can accuse you of any crime at any time. Being temporarily detained or arrested until get a trial, is NOT a presumption of guilt. You have the presumption of innocence in court becuase it is the prosecuting party that assumes the burden of proof for their accusation.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[onefriedrice]

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?

As usual, the media has portrayed this bill according to whatever political slant the news outlets see fit. In reality, the Arizona bill is not much different than the federal law on illegal immigration (which obviously just isn't enforced). In particular, more than a few pundits are trying to portray this law as giving law officers the power to go door-to-door in search of illegal aliens to bust. In actuality, there is no such powers, and officers may only ask for papers if there is an altercation. In that case, since officers usually ask to see ID's of any involved persons during any dispute on the street, nobody should have a problem with the Arizona law unless they're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Clearly, the reason this law is getting so much negative attention is because it makes the President look bad to have states enact laws to enforce federal laws that aren't being enforced.

There are more points to the issue, though. The residents of Arizona overwhelmingly support it because the fact is (although many want to ignore this), illegal immigration is a big problem, economically and socially. As much as people like to avoid talking about this, a huge chunk of crime (especially violent crime) is caused by Spanish-speakers, many of whom are here illegally. I don't blame them! Or at least, I can see the problem they're in. Illegal immigration is akin to slavery, pure and simple. Humans deserve better, which is why this problem needs to be fixed. If nothing else, at least the Arizona law has made it an issue the federal government now wants to address.

The simplest thing we can do to fix this problem is to make it easier to immigrate here legally. Talking about amnesty or anything regarding what to do about illegals who are already here is like bailing water without stopping to fix the hole. If it's easy to immigrate here, more of those who would be illegals become tax-paying, fairly-payed citizens. Then we can work to help illegal aliens who are already here find their way to the back of the line. The longer we wait, the longer this modern form of slavery is going to continue.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Foobar of Borg]

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

You seem to have missed the point that not everyone with brown skin in Arizona is an alien, legal or otherwise. Or, to put it another way, if I took my aunt who was born in Germany (but is now an American citizen) to Arizona, they are probably not going to stop her and demand to see her papers to prove that she is here legally.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[causality]

How is this a problem? By Law they are required to carry documentation with them, like a drivers license.

Because it's so easy to demagogue.

Any problem here is with the federal government, as enforcing immigration laws and taking reasonable measures to protect the country's borders is properly their job. As they have utterly failed to do this job, and their utter failure is causing many problems for certain state governments, one of those states is now trying to do something about it rather than ignoring it and continuing to have these problems.

My bet is that the Feds aren't doing jack shit about this because both political parties benefit from the current situation. Republicans are allied with some corporate interests who view the illegal aliens as low-cost workers, while for Democrats, the joke is "they're not illegal aliens, they're unregistered Democrats." Both stand to lose those benefits if states start dealing with this. Both are powerful political and monied interests. That's why this has to be portrayed as negatively as possible with the most highly emotional rhetoric available. Certainly no critical analysis of this rhetoric will be allowed in the news, though it may appear in some editorial programs.

Right now most of the problem of illegal aliens is coming from Mexico; at least in Arizona this is the case. Thus, these laws will mostly be applied to Mexicans who are here illegally or are here legally but failed to produce the paperwork. None of the people enforcing this law caused Mexicans to come here illegally. They are merely recognizing that this is happening and acting accordingly. Yet because Mexicans are a racial/ethnic group, and because the media eats this kind of shit for breakfast, this measure is being called "racist". It's pure bullshit.

If we had many illegal immigrants from England, Spain, Mexico, and Canada, yet the immigration laws were only enforced against the illegal immigrants who are Mexican, that would be an instance of racism or ethnic discrimination. That isn't the case. Right now the problem is coming from Mexico and illegal immigrants from elsewhere are more like statistical error by comparison. Again, some percentage of Mexican citizens are responsible for that, not anyone who wrote or plans to enforce Arizona's new law. You'll practically never see such a common-sense recognition in the media.

Really, people who think this is some horrible extreme law should take a hard look sometime at Mexico's immigration laws, or those of most other countries for that matter. There's an almost 100% chance that none of the highly emotional people screaming bloody murder about this have done so.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[adelporto]

So you're fine with being asked to provide proof of citizenship during a routine traffic stop? Keep in mind that your driver's license isn't proof of citizenship. Given that the US is a country of immigrants and therefore anyone and everyone looks like an immigrant, police can detain you until you prove that you are a citizen. You obviously don't care if that happens to brown citizens going about their day, because, and this is a wild guess, you're white and don't think this law would affect you, but think for a second about what that means if you happen to be protesting something the government doesn't like. Can't prove your citizenship? Detention for you.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[timeOday]

they are not allowed to "suspect" you do to skin color, race, or country of origin...

Driving While Black isn't a crime either, so I'm SURE minorities aren't subject to any extra traffic enforcement either... right?

The law carefully avoids requiring a "REALLY good reason" by avoiding the words "probable cause."

If it isn't based on skin color, what will it be based on? English competency? Off-brand tennis shoes? We already have Tom Tancredo calling for poll tests! Wow, next week it will be "separate but equal."

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[jackchance]

Getting arrested or detained does not make you guilty. You'll still have your day in court or clear things up at the station.Think of it like a beefed up curfew law for minors.

Getting detained doesn't make you guilty, but you could lose your job for not showing up at work.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[still cynical]

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

But what about non-visitors? US citizens don't carry birth certificates or passports with them every day, nor are they required to. So how do they prove their citizenship when stopped? Would they just be detained until they can have someone bring their passport to the local jail? No one seems too concerned with that scenario because of the unspoken assumption that anyone who "looked" like a citizen wouldn't be stopped. And that's where the concerns of discrimination come into play. I'm sure the vast majority of people who support this law are confident they won't be stopped and asked for proof of citizenship because they are "obviously" American. Of course, if they're wrong they're going to be very unhappy to find that a driver's license isn't even close to documentation of citizenship.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[DesScorp]

" And in the U.S., permanent residents typically aren't hassled, at least until now. "

And if that happens, you can blame three parties for that in the US; the federal government, which has to a great extent ignored the problem of illegal immigration, the politicians that want them to continue ignoring the porous borders, and the businesses that keep them coming because they don't want to pay market rates for labor. Don't blame the people who finally got fed up with coyotes leading columns of illegal aliens across their lawns at 2 in the morning. The states are acting now because the federals are not.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Sycraft-fu]

While I'm not at all a fan of this bill, what you are talking about is a completely separate issue. If the US has a fucked up immigration system, and it does, then it needs to fix it. The answer isn't just "Let's ignore problems because the system is fucked up."

That is actually a large way that we've gotten in to the current mess with illegal immigration. A non-trivial amount of the population does not seem to want a solution, they just want to ignore things. They don't seem to want to forward solutions, such as streamlining the process, reducing costs, having work visas, etc, they just want to allow things to continue illegally. That is a bad situation. Fix the system, don't ignore the problem.

So same shit here. There are reasons to be mad at Arizona about this law, but that because the federal government sucks at the paperwork is not one of them. The paperwork should be done properly and if ti isn't the feds are who to be mad at.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[ArcherB]

They are stealing your time. I hope people can clog things up real good for this. Fight it every way you can. It's outrageous.

I know. Seriously, what kind of law enforcement agency actually tries to enforce the law? What a bunch of dicks!

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Sounds like you have a problem with the federal immigration system, just like Arizona does.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[causality]

Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal here is. In most places in the world... the first world included... visitors are required to have documentation on them of some kind, be it visa papers or a passport.

You seem to have missed the point that not everyone with brown skin in Arizona is an alien, legal or otherwise. Or, to put it another way, if I took my aunt who was born in Germany (but is now an American citizen) to Arizona, they are probably not going to stop her and demand to see her papers to prove that she is here legally.

And if we had a big problem with literally tens of millions of Germans sneaking into this country by illegally crossing its borders, then maybe I'd see your point.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Loki_1929]

I don't think anyone disputes that current US immigration procedures and handling are pretty well screwed up. That, however, does not change the fact that we have 12 - 20 million people here illegally who are (per laws and policies) to be found and booted from the country. As our Federal government is more interested in granting amnesty to law-breakers in this area of the law than it is in actually enforcing the law, the state of Arizona has decided that it has had enough of what is - by any measure - a full-scale invasion.

Ideally, I would like to see all our immigration policies and procedures overhauled so that everyone coming in legally is able to do so with as little trouble and expense as possible while everyone trying to come here illegally is either prevented from doing so or is quickly located and deported. Unfortunately, far too many in Congress want to tie making your life easier with giving tens of millions of illegal alien invaders amnesty and citizenship as a reward for violating our sovereign borders and ignoring our laws. Considering the fact that these illegal alien invaders are now kidnapping US citizens and have been raping and murdering our citizens en masse for decades, and considering the fact that the drug cartels from Mexico are now extending their wars across our borders, you're just going to have to wait until we can get the idiots in Congress to fix the legal immigration system.

Your beef is not with Arizona, but with the US Federal government. It is not Arizona's fault that the Federal government is leaving you in limbo. It is not Arizona's fault that the Federal government isn't providing you with up-to-date status paperwork. You and I have two common enemies in this fight: the Federal government that's basically screwing you while leaving my country's borders insecured in the middle of one of the largest invasions in history and the illegal immigrants who are flooding into the country without bothering to go through the process you've been working with (because you apparently care about following the law and respecting this country - two concepts utterly foreign to illegals) who have forced Arizona into this position.

If the citizens of Arizona weren't under constant threat from drug cartels and other criminal aliens, and if there weren't an ongoing invasion of the country that's overwhelming our social services and draining our economy, then I'd say we shouldn't resort to states doing things like this just yet as it's really the responsibility of the Federal government to fix things. However, we're under attack and it requires a more urgent response. We've been waiting for the Federal government to fix the problem of illegals flooding into this country by the millions for decades. It simply isn't happening. Now that our people are being kidnapped, taken away, murdered, etc on the verge of a full-scale drug war spilling into our streets, dealing with the illegals has become the overriding priority.

You're in the immigration emergency room telling me your foot hurts. I got gunshot victims to deal with first. Will get to you ASAP. Want to improve your situation in the meantime? Get together with a whole bunch of other people who are in favor of fixing the immigration system without amnesty for illegals and get the Feds to fix their broken system. In the meantime, if you're a non-citizen in the US without documentation showing that you're here legally, ya might wanna steer clear of Arizona and several other states considering similar legislation.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Loki_1929]

If you believe the police in the United States are "the local gestapo" who simply "pistol whip" people on a whim, it's probably past time for your medication. When your persecution complex is muted by the Aripiprazole, we'll look at the reality of the situation.
.
.
.
.
.

Alright, so if you're a US citizen who believes the police may have reason to suspect you're in the country illegally, you have a few options to avoid any issues. First and foremost, a driver's license works wonders. If you're driving a vehicle, you have to have one of those anyway. If you simply don't drive at all - ever, and don't want/need a driver's license, you can get a state-issue ID for little or no cost. Either should be perfectly sufficient to resolve any questions from law enforcement.

However, it's more likely that most cops are going to know pretty quickly if you're someone they need to check. If you don't speak English, that's probably a good place to begin. If you get pulled over and don't have a license or other ID (which is, itself, a problem), then that's kind of a clue too. If you take off running when they say 'Hello', that'd also be a good starting point.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[pipedwho]

The problem is that we've made criminals a protected class in America for so long that they have more rights than legal citezens. IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore.

That's not the way it ever worked.

Criminals are not a protected 'class', and the constitution has never applied ONLY to citizens.

In fact, beyond the obvious loss of rights that happens to someone when they're incarcerated, the government doesn't suddenly have a legal reprieve to ignore the constitution. Think for example the 8th Amendment regarding "cruel and unusual punishment". How would that make any sense if all of a sudden the constitution ceased to apply once you've been convicted. Could you then be punished "cruelly and unusually"?

At the time that the US Constitution was written, there was no universal requirement of citizenship. In fact the word citizen wasn't even mentioned in the constitution until the 14th Amendment was added nearly 100 years later.

The US Constitution is probably one of the most noble documents ever written. And the denial of rights, or the selective application of its laws, is anathema to the entire purpose of its text.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[edumacator]

They CANNOT walk up to a random person on the street and check their immigration status.

You must not know a lot of cops. What you are saying is technically true, but if someone who appears to be Hispanic, and they swerve ever so slightly in their lane, the cops can and often will stop them for that minor infraction, so that they can check their status. The cops I know in Georgia don't do this for immigration purposes, but if you drink a few beers with them, they'll admit to stopping Hispanics because they have a higher likelihood of carrying drugs.

Laws like this are meant to give the police HUGE latitude in stopping someone. They are also targeting a group that doesn't have the wherewithal to hire a good lawyer to invalidate the original stop.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[MartinSchou]

There IS a reason to be upset with Arizona for this law. They are punishing people for something they cannot possibly fix or even rectify. It's not as if the Arizona state legislature doesn't know this is an issue.

Imagine this situation:
You're arrested for whatever trivial reason. The phone system is down, so you can't get to call your own lawyer, so you're assigned a court appointed one. Once in court, your lawyer suffers a stroke, but the court don't want to waste its time arranging for you to get another lawyer, and not only convicts you of whatever you were arrested for, but also holds you in contempt of court for wasting its time because your lawyer had a stroke.

You have no way of influencing the things that get screwed up. Same with the green card system. You apply in time, you're told that while they're working on it, you can stay, but you have no paperwork showing they're working on it, so you can be arrested and deported (to Mexico? who will then deport you to somewhere else for not having a VISA). Now you've been arrested and left the country, so your green card might not be approved. And it will make it impossible for you to come back.

So yeah ... a state deciding to punish the victims of Federal incompetence is quite immoral. What next? Jailing and deporting women who have been kidnapped, raped and transported to a foreign country against their will to be sold off as sex slaves? Oh ... right ... maybe Arizona's taking a page out of the Danish rulebook.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[MartinSchou]

You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance

Question: Where did these illegal immigrants get money for stuff like food and clothing?

Are they ALL thieves, drug dealers and such? Or do they possibly work (illegally) in the country? Why aren't anyone punishing the employers who are enabling these illegal immigrants? Why aren't you throwing them in prison for violating the law? Conspiracy to break the law at the very least. Aiding and abetting a criminal.

Change these charges from misdemeanors to felonies. Throw the responsible parties in jail (including the illegal immigrants), from foremen to CEOs, single citizen hiring maids, gardeners, nannies etc.

It's supply and demand at work. There's a demand for illegal immigrant workers, because they're cheaper. No need for insurance, lower salaries all round - they aren't going to be paying tax, so you can cut that away from their salary, you can press their salary even more, because they won't complain about working 12-16 hours a day, because that can get them deported etc. And since there's a demand for these workers, and a natural amount of replacement due to deportation, there will be a massive supply of these illegal immigrant workers.

What is the punishment for hiring illegal immigrant workers at the moment? Is there any kind of punishment at all? As long as it is not only cheaper to hire them, but still cheaper even when you get caught red handed hiring them. Essentially you have a law stating that it is illegal for radioactive waste being stored in kindergartens, but you're just moving the waste and not giving a rats ass about who put it there in the first place. No wonder you have a problem.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[Lakitu]

I left something out of my original reply.

You see the ER was packed with illegal immigrants who did not have insurance and were using it as a clinic to treat the flu, common colds, strep throat... stuff you take to a regular Dr. So the facilities tax payers have contributed to so its there in the event of an emergency is over-run. A nurse came outside after a half hour and walked us around to a side door where they finally treated my sons foot.

This little passage shows just how easily it is to abuse a law like this, and how quickly it will happen. How do you know these people were in the country illegally? Did you ask them all? Did you check their papers? How do you even know what's wrong with them? If you can so quickly diagnose them all with the common cold, then perhaps you should get a job working at that hospital, because you're a fucking genius with some kind of magical powers. If it's really that easy, then they wouldn't be clogging up the ER, since the people staffed there would be able to treat them just as quickly as you did.

You are putting yourself above other people in this country and using legality of immigration or color of skin as a justification. Thank god not everyone is like you, and the country's system of government gives everyone equal protections under the law.

You "sincerely hope" that the law will be abused. What a joke! I sincerely hope that you go fuck yourself and stop thinking you are more deserving than everyone else.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[eggoeater]

This is no different than if the EU State of Poland mobilized its laws and cops to protect itself from militias from Russia.

Actually it is very different. We are the f'ing USA; we have a constitution and a supreme court that specifically says this type of action (arresting/detaining people without probable cause) is illegal and a violation of civil rights.

It will be a short matter of time before this law is declared unconstitutional. I have no problem with the State of Arizona trying to deal with the immigration problem, however rounding up and detaining people is way WAY out of line, and making people carry their papers at all times or else go to jail is repugnant.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[dkleinsc]

An experienced cop admitting that when he followed a car long enough he could make a legal stop because at some point everyone makes a mistake. (I presume feeling nervous that a cop has been following you the last 8 blocks also doesn't help one's situation.)

It's definitely nervewracking, I can tell you that. I've been in that very position, not because I was non-white but because my car was a bit beat up and I had longish hair at the time, and I'm pretty sure the cop had decided that I didn't belong in his small suburb.

The basic picture: I saw the cop start to pull up behind me, and I was going about 40 in a 30 mph zone (which everyone else does too: it's a rural area that has no business having a speed limit so low), so I slow down to 35. The officer continued to pull up behind me, and I slowed to the speed limit. I gave him opportunities to pass just in case he was just trying to get by me, which he didn't take. I took a somewhat less direct route out of town, following every traffic law to the letter (including things like signaling 100 ft before a turn) and making a few turns. He followed me every step of the way until I left his jurisdiction.

Now imagine having to drive like that all the time, and you'll know what a Hispanic person in Arizona needs to do to avoid getting stopped.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[jeff4747]

That's still the wrong target for your anger.

If you are upset about illegal immigrants, your anger should be directed at the people who hire them.

The illegal immigrants would not be here if there were no jobs for them.

Re:What about the presumption of innocence?

[lena_10326]

It is pretty damned obvious by now to anyone with a brain that the feds aren't gonna do jack shit about illegals, and as anyone who has lived in one of the border states can tell you illegals are turning the towns into war zones!

Yes. It's a failure of the federal government to act. The response should be to bring troops home from the middle east and militarize the southern border to Mexico to bring law and order back to the border towns.

illegals naturally hate cops (because they are illegal themselves, duh!) so criminals in their neighborhoods can do whatever they want without fear of being turned in

That's an irrelevent point because there is gang violence in northern and north-eastern major cities (such as Seattle, Chicago, New York, etc) yet the illegal mexican population there is substantially lower. (In new york, the hispanic population is mostly legal cuban and spanish--not mexican.) The majority of illegal mexicans are ordinary families raising children--not hardened criminals. (Yes! Think of the children!)

anyone who has been in one lately can tell you the ERs are looking at 12+ hour waiting lines thanks to illegals using them as clinics (and of course never paying so YOU get to pick up the bill on your insurance),

You say they are using ERs for clinics. True, but by implication that means they are merely seeking basic care that clinics handle such as treatment for colds, infections, minor cuts and scrapes, etc. You know.. the cheap stuff. Why not provide that care in the form of an actual daytime free clinic? (Provided 1st paragraph is done 1st). The cost would be 10 to 20 times cheaper than what we're paying now. They're gonna scam the system anyway right? We either get hit with $1500 ER bills or $100 doctor visit bills. Let's take the cheaper option. Oh wait--that would mean implementing basic universal health care. Crap. We can't have that can we?

just look at the crime rates for places like Phoenix, the towns are becoming warzones!

See 1st paragraph.

So until the fed gets off their pandering asses and actually does something about the borders the states are gonna have to step up. If you don't like it, don't go there! That is one of the nice things about having 50 experiments in democracy, if you don't like one state's laws you are free to move. As someone whose state (AR) is starting to get flooded by illegals frankly I'm sick of it.

Meandering digression skipped.

I've known too many folks that have gotten seriously injured by illegals driving without insurance (because they are already breaking the law, what's one more?).

Why not legalize them and convert them into tax paying citizens so that they can drive legally? Have you seen the national debt obligations lately? Almost $79 trillion (or put another way 1 year's GDP for the entire planet!). That's $254,545 (=70b/308m) per citizen. Don't forget only half the population pays taxes via a paycheck. We need the mexicans to grow out of this financial mess. Besides, you know we're going to be legalizing them anyway. Deporting them all will never fly. Even the most radical rightwing republican recognizes that.

And with double digit unemployment I'm really fucking sick of jobs like construction, which used to be filled by hard working Americans that actually paid taxes, going to illegals because they will work for peanuts and send their money back to Mexico.

Solved by legalizing existing illegal workers which puts them on our tax collection and thus on equal par with american workers. That combined with the enforcement of existing laws and pushing through penalties on violating corporations will tighten that leaky faucet.

Hell it is so fucking bad here that guys yell "Immig

4th Amendment Violation

[Trip6]

This law so clearly violates the fourth amendment that it will never hold up when the inevitable challenge comes in the courts. Some have predicted it will go all the way to the SCOTUS but I don't see it getting nearly so far.

Federal law already requires documentation

[mveloso]

I'm not sure why everyone's panties are getting bunched up. As the header states, Federal law already requires you to carry your visa around with you. People on H1B, tourist, and educational visas shouldn't have problems.

The issue will really hit illegals and US citizens. Citizens generally don't carry documentation around with them. Illegals generally have no documentation, or fake documentation. There's really no way to tell a non-english speaking citizen from a non-english speaking illegal. What'll probably happen is something like this:

Police: are you a US citizen?
Potential perp: si
Police: well then.

In general, the police have better things to do than walk around randomly asking people for their papers. The law really just allows them to export illegal immigrant criminals to other jurisdictions, saving the state of AZ money.

Re:Uh... contradictory?

[BountyX]

While your point is valid...I think the bigger issue with enforcment is how it effects the citezenry. Warning (here comes a hypothetical): What if you are a citizen but speak accented english, or you prefer to speak another language. A cop suspects you are an immigrant and demands immigration papers. Does the cop detain you at that point? Do you need to carry papers to prove citizenship on demand? Does this lead to frequent detention? It just seems unreasonable and ambigous to enforce something like this without encroaching the rights of citizens.

Wrong - Mod Parent Down

[nobodyman]

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.

It's for your own safety, Ma'am.

[eloquent_loser]

I find it strange that the article doesn't discuss the implications for normal U.S citizens, i.e how do you prove you are *not* a H-1B worker? You can't tell a citizen from a non-citizen if neither of them are carrying anything. Obviously no-one who merely arouses the suspicion of police wants to be detained, therefore this constitutes a defacto requirement for every citizen to carry papers.

Re:checks and balances, sue and cash in

[DrgnDancer]

You carry your birth certificate with you at all times? Or your passport? Those are the only two documents you list that prove citizenship or legal status. Neither a military ID nor a driver's license is considered a proof of status. I carried my military ID around for years, but still had to provide a birth certificate, Social Security Card, or Passport as proof of legal right to work when I got a new job. I was a National Guardsman, so I changed employers several times while still carrying a military ID, and it was never once accepted as proof of citizenship (not surprising, non-citizens can be in the military. We had a Brit in our unit. He eventually got US citizenship, but was a legal resident for the first two or three years of his service. He couldn't get a clearance until his citizenship went through, but not all jobs require them).

That's the problem here. Actually, there's two problems. Requiring someone to show any form of identification without a their being a suspect in a crime or otherwise falling somehow under the jurisdiction if the police is wrong, and generally one of the things we see in over the top satires of authoritarian states ("Youa paapas, plaeze!"). That a US state should make it a matter of course for law enforcement to ask citizens for proof of citizenship lest they face arrest would be comical if it wasn't depressing. The *secondary* problem is that proof of citizenship is actually a pain to carry.

Your Social Security Card says right on it that it should be kept in a safe place, not carried. Your birth certificate is probably a fairly large and cumbersome document to lug around (not to mention that it should also be kept in a safe place), and Americans are not required to possess Passports unless they plan to travel abroad. What do you suggest US citizens of Mexican decent carry to prove their citizenship? Driver's license isn't proof. SSC and birth certificate shouldn't be carried. Passport they may or may not have and are not legally required to have.

Who the law is aimed at is completely immaterial to who it may affect. One could reasonably argue that legal residents have to carry a green card. It's a pain, but one could make a reasonable argument, that it's a burden they bear for living in a country not their own. The fact that there is absolutely no way to externally tell the difference between an illegal Mexican immigrant, a legal Mexican immigrant, and a US citizen of Mexican decent creates a dilemma though. The citizen should not be required to carry proof of citizenship, but without such proof how do you know he's a citizen? If this was a rare and unusual use case, it might not be that bad, but there are hundred's of thousands if not millions of US citizens of Mexican decent in Arizona.