“WILL YOU PLEASE STOP! The AZ law requires that public safety officers have to have already detained the person for other reasons before they can even entertain the possibility that the person is not here legally. Your extensive post then goes on to require that the law say EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW DOES SAY! Given this, what can possibly be your real objection??”
That’s what I thought initially too, but from what I’ve read since it is not the case. Please cite a reference that backs up what you’re saying.
From the SCM (CNN):
“The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they’re in the United States illegally.”
and
‘The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.
“This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States,” Brewer said after signing the bill.’
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/
I’ve not seen a single article that claims another infraction is required to initiate the process. Also, if that were the case, the requirement to present ID when questioned would already be sufficient - you can’t get ID without being a legal citizen in AZ, no? In that case all that was needed was a law stating that immigration law would be enforced at the state level if an infraction was noted.
Interesting that you cite CNN in your defense. I also note that the first several attempts just to get the text brought up dozens of links to protests, disallowals refutations and other anti-SB1070 diatribes. Then I found this link: http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Is-federal-immigration-law-different-from/1ZdAAkpg-U6oVELk47QVBw.cspx?rss=1977
The text can then be linked from that. The article appears to conclude what I said and to refute what you are alleging. Who is your source?
My wife is English and has been a legal alien in the United States for 35 years. From the time she arrived here, she was instructed to ensure that she carried her green card .. her alien registration card .. with her at all times. To the best of my memory, I believe that the card itself carries the statement that it will be carried at all times.
So all the Arizona law is doing is reaffirming the federal laws? So what's the problem?
Here is the actual 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).
Lawful contact is required though not defined.
When an immigrant is issued a “green card,” he is told he/she must have the card in their possession at all times. It is already a federal law to carry it.