Arizona's New Immigration Law

Shelbyville Times-Gazette ^ | April 25, 2010 | Thom Williamson

[usurper]

Will they go to jail until they can produce the required document(s)?

There is nothing in federal law or this new Arizona law that requires a US citizen to carry identification unless you are boarding a commercial airplane or applying for a job.

What do they need to carry or show to prove they are not illegal?

It does not work that way a police officer would have to have reasonable suspicion that the individual was an alien before asking for documentation. The officer would need probable cause to make an arrest.

Hispanic-looking U.S. Citizens who, who were born and raised in the U.S. but will no doubt be pulled over due to the new law.

In order to perform a vehicle stop the officer would need reasonable suspicion that the driver was an alien and in violation of law. Since Hispanic appearance alone is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion the officer could not stop the vehicle.

In the real world along our southern border Hispanics make up a large portion of the population and randomly questioning people on the street or in vehicles would not only be illegal but completely unproductive waist of time as 98% of the Hispanics you stopped and questioned would be legal.

The questioning will occur as the result of normal law enforcement encounters with motorists and individuals. If during the encounter the officer develops reasonable suspicion that the individual is an alien he can then ask for proof of legal status.

[KC Burke]

Now if we can just get Ex-Senator Obama to cross from Mexico into Arizona.....

The possiblities of that traffic stop documentation are fun to think about -- "What do you maean when you say, 'Long Form'?"

[Lion Den Dan]

I guess the problem is with U S citizens, not aliens, who are not accustomed to carrying their birth certificate or whatever will be needed, all the time. ? Will they go to jail until they can produce the required document(s)?

The absence of a government issued ID or a driver's license is a good indicator that the individual is an illegal. US citizens already carry basic ID to do daily business.

[elpadre]

I may be wrong, but I understand this law covers those who for some reason become a person of interest. Perhaps a traffic violation, suspect in a crime, etc. All police agencies occasionally operate check points looking for drivers licenses and registrations and these would undoubtedly activate the law.

Although there will always be one rambo, I trust the LE to do it in good taste.

[alexandria]

Hispanic-looking U.S. Citizens who, who were born and raised in the U.S. but will no doubt be pulled over due to the new law. They would not have “papers” or “green cards”. What do they need to carry or show to prove they are not illegal?

How about a drivers license?

[wtc911]

I know one thing, when I visit Canada I have to take my VISA and I need to prove who I am if stopped by the RCMP. That’s the law

_______________________________________

No it's not. Any American can visit Canada without a visa and vice versa. If you're asked by LEO you have to show proof of identity but never a visa.

[wtc911]

I am asking about the - not to sound racist, but - Hispanic-looking U.S. Citizens who, who were born and raised in the U.S. but will no doubt be pulled over due to the new law. They would not have “papers” or “green cards”. What do they need to carry or show to prove they are not illegal?

_______________________________________________

You have hit the nail on the head.

The law states only that any LEO be in "lawful contact" and have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is here in violation of US law in order to require that the individual prove his status. neither "lawful contact" nor "reasonable suspicion" is defined beyond the term itself.

The individual could be walking home from a stroll in the park or a visit to his mom's but if he is hispanic he'd better be sure to carry ID. If he's white or black he wouldn't need it. That is the problem with this law.

[Clemenza]

Like Prop 187, this is a "feel good"/"do something" law that will get thrown out in court for reasons obvious to someone with an IQ above freezing.

Of course, NOBODY seems to have the stones to do the most EFFICIENT and EFFECTIVE thing and strictly enforce employee verification laws. That would be going against "Amurcan" businesses you see.

[wtc911]

99.5% of the law is on target. The first section is too broad and will be the only one the msm talks about. And, frankly, it is problematic for me and, I would hope, most Conservative Americans.

I wonder what St. Sarah has to say about it...

[WOBBLY BOB]

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

dealt with in 1968

[rbmillerjr]

“No it’s not. Any American can visit Canada without a visa and vice versa. If you’re asked by LEO you have to show proof of identity but never a visa.”

That’s not correct.

You do need a passport now. The policy has changed.

[moehoward]

Excellent!!!

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Somebody needs to get this to the idiots at fox news.

[rbmillerjr]

You say the first section of this bill is too broad.

In what way is it too broad?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Drivers licence and the ability to speak english fluently will suffice.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Clear your cards, we have BINGO.

[Don W]

I *think* he meant a PASSPORT, which has been the law since January 2009, but there was some sort of delay.

Nonetheless, you MUST have a PASSPORT to enter the USA, no matter where you are from. Even if you are a US natural born citizen, you MUST produce a valid passport from your nation of citizenship.

Unless you’re a Kenyan...

[wtc911]

You are likely correct. It’s odd though that you don’t have to show a passport to enter Canada but you do in order to return to the States.

[wtc911]

You say the first section of this bill is too broad. In what way is it too broad?

__________________________________________

Did you read it?

Folks here are saying that the law will allow LEOs to ask for proof of status from anybody who is stopped for a traffic violation. The law does not say that at all. It only says that any LEO who is in "legal contact" with an individual. There is zero definition on the term "legal contact". This leaves the door open for random stops on the street or in a park or a store or any building.

That is way too broad and it is because of it that the opposition will prevail.

[rbmillerjr]

I have read the first section that has the aclu up in arms.

It goes beyond what you stated. An officer can only ask for a identification if there is reasonable cause to suspect the person of being illegal. Reasonable cause is not sustained by race. There are specific provisions that state they cannot racial profile.

If a person is stopped for a moving violation, they are asked for ID anyway.

If you look at the federal language above in this thread...it is very much like that language...it reiterates the language that is NOT being enforced by the Feds on the border areas and across the nation.

We keep stating we want tougher illegal immigration law...well here it is. I’d think most conservatives would agree with this bill.