Good way to bring an end to the Arizona immigration law

[eyewall]

The law states that an American citizen who is not carrying proof of citizenship can be sentenced to six months in jail. Most people do not know what is required for Proof of Citizenship (a driver's license does not qualify).

Here is the official govt list of acceptable documents to prove you are a "legal":

Documents serving as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship are:

* Previously issued, undamaged US passport
* Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state of birth
* Consular Report of Birth (of U.S. citizen) Abroad or Certification of Birth
* Naturalization Certificate
* Certificate of Citizenship

The Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth should be obtained by persons who were born abroad to U.S. citizens.

How many of you have appropriate documents on your person every day?

People who oppose this law should ask whites on the street for their proof of citizenship. Let them know that almost everyone in the state of Arizona could face jail time at any moment under this law. Even better if police did this since they are supposedly not using racial profiling.

How can Arizonians stand for this previously abhorrent image of totalitarianism? We've all grown up seeing the frightening images of police stopping someone on the street and demanding "Show me your papers", knowing they could be whisked away to jail without suspicion of any crime. It's an image that was used to define how America was different from a tyrannical dictatorship. It defined how we cherished our freedom.

Bring it home to the man on the street before Hannity and Mrs Palin convince enough people that this should become a federal law.

[cdsilv]

1. Hmm - the left out 'naturalized' from the language 'American Citizen'.....n/t

[pinboy3niner]

2. Proof of citizenship is NOT required

The law would require proof of LEGAL PRESENCE in the U.S.

And a driver's license issued by AZ and 44 other states is presumptive proof of legal presence under the law (the five states excluded are those that do not verify legal presence before issuing a license).

[NoNothing]

4. Who needs to read the laws

When we can just rail against our vague impressions of what the law is?

[eyewall]

11. Only if you are not a citizen

Immigration papers, visa, passport or green card are acceptable ID if you are not a US citizen. A US citizen is legally present anywhere in the US. The assumption is that an Arizona driver's license or ID card has been obtained legally and with proof of citizenship. A law enforcement officer can decide he doubts the validity of the license and require further proof, in line with federal requirements for proof of citizenship (see OP)

This law is not intended to affect average white boys, it's currently targeted at race. That doesn't have to remain true forever. If the law is allowed to stand it could someday affect all of us.

Not trying to be contrary but I feel strongly about the acceleration this law signifies in our eroding freedom.

edited to add: I haven't seen this mentioned here but what if you are traveling from the state of Washington? Your driver's licenses is not accepted in Arizona's law. As far as I can tell that means you would need one of the federally authorized documents (see OP). If you cannot produce this proof you can be arrested and detained by either the police or the immigration authorities. You can be fined and you can be incarcerated. There are five states this applies to?

May I see your passport please?

[pinboy3niner]

13. No, there's no "only if"

For an officer to question the validity of a presumptive document, he or she must have a reasonable justification for doing so. To "decide to doubt" the validity of a document, without justification, means the officer will have a major problem in court. Again, abuse of authority is a separate issue, and cops are held accountable by our courts. We're talking about what the law allows, not what "outlaw" cops may do arbitrarily and capriciously with regard to this (or any) law.

We've agreed the law is racist, and it should not stand. Besides the clear Fourth Amendment issue, there's a constitutional pre-emption issue. I believe the law will be struck down, and I hope it will be on the basis of the Fourth, because individual civil rights are central and crucial to the functioning of our democratic republic, and, on that basis, the law is unconstitutional on its face.

On your edit remarks: You are absolutely correct. A WA driver would have to provide some other proof of lawful presence, as a WA license is not acceptable as proof under the law. Papers, please?

[slackmaster]

3. You are repeating misinformation - Proof of citizenship is not required

Proof of lawful residence is required. Most state driver's licenses are sufficient for that.

You should read the law before attempting to comment on it. Your post is way off base.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

K&U

[pinboy3niner]

5. Wrong link

That's the Senate version; it was the House version that was enascted:


http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm

Note that the authentic text of the law , as enacted and signed, will indicate "House Engrossed Senate Bill" on the front page.

[eyewall]

6. Not so fast...

I worked with a company that regularly employed undocumented immigrants. They always had "proper" ID, driver's license and social security card. The company was a landscaping firm and their policy was to stringently check ID and keep copies in their records for proof of immigration status. This is already the normal method of determining legal status. Many of these individuals had been stopped by the police for traffic violations and let go with a ticket. Arizona has employed the same efforts with the same results. That's the reason for this law.

With the legal language as it gets interpreted in laws there's always an unforeseen combination of phrases. That's why legislation is written so carefully. If you leave a possibility of abuse you must assume that someday it will be used. You cannot accept legislation that has provisions which could be misapplied to abuse civil rights.

I read the entire law (it's only 17 pages) and I saw the potential for exactly what I posted in the OP.

Arizona's immigration law, now considered the toughest in the nation, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires local police to enforce federal immigration laws. It will require anyone whom police suspect of being in the country illegally to produce "an alien registration document," such as a green card or other proof of citizenship, such as a passport or Arizona driver's license.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/23/20100423arizona-immigration-law-passed.html

" ...such as a passport or Arizona driver's license". An Arizona driver's license is not considered legal federaly accepted proof of citizenship. This is known and according to the wording of this law, can be rejected by the police officer making the request. Thus opening another door for harassment and abuse. I do not believe this law was written to harass anyone except Latinos. That's why I think it would drive the point home to apply it to whites.

The six months in jail bit is from Arizona law regarding inability to pay court issued fines of a thousand dollars when coupled with a class 3 misdemeanor violation. I realize that's a stretch and probably would never be applied to a legal resident because it would immediately lead to the law being overturned. However, the potential is there and the fear of such abuse would increase the law's intimidation factor.

I've been harassed by law enforcement for various frivolous crimes in my youth such as having long hair which was treated as a crime in Los Angeles in 1965 to 1968. I'm sure it lasted at least that long, that's when I finally left for good. As an obvious liberal in civil rights and anti war demonstrations I was subjected in several communities to a form of racial profiling and serious abuses of my civil rights, all of which were deemed "legal" by gross misinterpretation of existing law. Don't think abuses are not couched in fancy interpretations of legal statutes.

In the Arizona Immigration law the opportunity for serious abuse exists. It's easy to say it doesn't explicitly call for such abuses but the wording is there to allow it. Civil rights requires making rules that can't be perverted by an individual's wrong intentions. The spirit of this law is racist and degrading. The law's purpose is intimidation of the entire Latino community which apparently makes up about a third of the population of Arizona. It is an obviously "white" law aimed at brown people.

(edited to add a clarification to the six months in jail bit)

[eyewall]

7. My mistake was

saying in the OP that "this law states" rather than "this law allows".

I apologize for that.

[eyewall]

8. oh, btw... US Code Section 1373 section C

From the Arizona law:

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

United States Code Section 1373c:

(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an
inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or
status information.

bolded highlights my own.

The requirement for federal proof of citizenship reverts to the list in the OP of accepted documents. Or at least it could be interpreted as such.

[pinboy3niner]

9. Here's where you go astray

This section of the law specifies that any one of the documents listed is considered by Arizona to be presumptive proof of legal presence (caps in original):

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.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.

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.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm

This means that an Arizona driver's license cannot be rejected--it is specifically identified in the law as presumptive proof of legal presence. The same goes for driver's licenses issued by 44 other states which require "proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance." The five exceptions are HI, IL, NM, UT, and WA. These exceptions are identified by Arizona DOT, Motor Vehicle Division:

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410


What is offensive about the law is not the potential for misapplication or abuse (something that applies to EVERY law). Even without that, execution of the law amounts to an illegal search and seizure, which is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. This is a blatant violation of individual civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. And I certainly agree with you that it is also racist and designed to target, intimidate and (I would add) disenfranchise a specific minority group.

You'll have to pardon some of us here for being sticklers about getting the facts straight. That's something that's important in its own right, as well as for the sake of productive discussion. It's also important as a practical matter, because, should this misbegotten law actually take effect, those likely to be profiled and targeted will need to have a clear understanding of their rights, and specifically of what documentation is sufficient to meet the law's requirements. No one should be subjected to this--or worse, face the ordeal of arrest, jail, or being handed over to ICE for deportation.

We ARE on the same side here. Let's avoid spreading misinformation and creating confusion.

And, BTW, welcome to DU
:hi:

[eyewall]

10. thanks, it's great to be here.

We ARE on the same side here. Let's avoid spreading misinformation and creating confusion.

And, BTW, welcome to DU
:hi:

Many Arizona police have proclaimed their opposition to this bill. I still read the bill as saying the officer making the stop has the authorization to determine if he has been presented valid documentation according to federal law. It's not unreasonable to assume a driver's license could be refused as proof of citizenship. If the validity is questioned, which doesn't require any proof of it being a phony license, it can proceed to further proof being required, i.e. a passport or naturalization papers. This also sounds suspiciously like another shot at a national ID card.

The intimidation factor is immense for Latinos. The threat of being detained and turned over to immigration authorities is always present so illegal or not, this bill greatly increases their chances of harassment.

We ARE on the same side here but I have less faith in a questionable law being enforced ethically and with fairness in every case. The purpose of this law is to be unfair. The language make it possible to also be unconstitutional.

[Igel]

12. Yes.

The problem is that there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the AZ DL is fraudulent. Presumably guidelines will be coming out about what can justify reasonable suspicion.

Had the word "reasonable" been left out, you'd have a point. But the word wasn't left out, and we don't get to say that because we distrust some group they will obligatorily define "reasonable" to mean "whimsical". Or, rather, we can say it, but if we intend to be taken credibly we'd better have some basis for it.

Note that a *state* or local officer complying with *state* law doesn't have to worry about the demands of *federal* law for establishing whether the person is in the US legally, at least for the first part of the bill. *State* law governs his actions, since he's operating under *state* law. It doesn't matter what an FBI agent might require.

However, even if there is an AZ driver's license or other documentation in evidence, if there's verification from some entity that the person is in the US illegally the presumption is overturned. You can have fun coming up with *plausible* ways of seeing how that works out. I can think of a few.

Of course, there are cases in which an investigation can be based on far less than a reasonable suspicion by a police officer. That's if you think a worker is isn't eligible. Then you can report him/her and the employer anonymously.

[pinboy3niner]

14. I can't PM you yet, so, since this thread is either dead or virtually so . . .

I'll place my private message here.

It looks like we're homeboys. I grew up in the '60's in the San Fernando Valley--was graduated from HS in '66, drafted into the army in '67.

It seems we may have more in common than our political views . . .

Love & Peace, pinboy3niner

[eyewall]

15. same time, same place...

We are homies, cool!
I lived in the Valley, Northridge, Granada Hills mostly.
Graduated '67, moved to San Francisco, drafted '70 (long story)

nice to meet you pinboy :toast:

(I have PM turned on but not email)

[pinboy3niner]

16. Wow--we ARE homies

I lived in Sepulveda, near the Falk Ranch (by Lassen and Balboa). Graduated Monroe in '66. Jr. Hi was Patrick Henry.

Always nice to meet people on DU. Even better to meet fellow "gangstas" from back in the hood (rofl).

It's really good to connect with you here, eyewall.:toast: