Arizona’s struggle against illegal immigration

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So...where do they send him?

Better question is how would they identify his citizenship . . . right? That answer is easy.

I guess I'm not very smart because the answer isn't obvious to me.

The last time he was arrested for public intox just outside of PHX, he had no ID of any kind. His story isn't terribly unique.

This means that his ID is on file.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

No, but then I'm not legally required to, nor am I if I decide to go for a walk.

Uh huh. So let's say you're walking past Home Depot and a friend of yours rolls by in a pick-up truck. Feel safe waving to him?

I mean, you DID read the law; right?

You do realize that what you are doing, 2 years ago, was called fear-mongering. Something you and your progressive friends hated. Why is it OK now?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 4]

I take it then that you didn't read the provisions of the law that allow police to question, detain and arrest anyone soliciting day work that doesn't have the appropriate documentation. The law specifically mentions scenarios like I've outlined.

It's a shitty law because it allows hassling citizens just going about their daily lives.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So...where do they send him?

Better question is how would they identify his citizenship . . . right? That answer is easy.

I guess I'm not very smart because the answer isn't obvious to me.

The last time he was arrested for public intox just outside of PHX, he had no ID of any kind. His story isn't terribly unique.

This means that his ID is on file.

This means his last arrest was on file.

Here's the problem; he's arrested simply because of his skin color and lack of ID. Who knows how long it'll take the system to sort out who he is? Or if anyone will even try.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

It's a shitty law because it allows hassling citizens just going about their daily lives.

When? You mean right after they have done something allowing them be lawfully detained and are required to produce identification?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 3,120]

>For me, I get the impression that my valid California driver's license will
>be sufficient.

From USGovInfo:

==================
Proof of U.S. citizenship must be established when dealing with all levels of U.S. government. Documents proving citizenship must be provided when applying for Social Security benefits and when applying for a U.S. passport.
Increasingly, states are requiring proof of citizenship when applying for “enhanced” drivers licenses as required by the federal Real ID Act.

Documents Serving as Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship

In most cases, documents serving as “primary” proof or evidence of citizenship are required. 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.
==================

So as long as you have one of those you're OK.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>For me, I get the impression that my valid California driver's license will
>be sufficient.

From USGovInfo:

==================
Proof of U.S. citizenship must be established when dealing with all levels of U.S. government. Documents proving citizenship must be provided when applying for Social Security benefits and when applying for a U.S. passport.
Increasingly, states are requiring proof of citizenship when applying for “enhanced” drivers licenses as required by the federal Real ID Act.

Documents Serving as Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship

In most cases, documents serving as “primary” proof or evidence of citizenship are required. 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.
==================

So as long as you have one of those you're OK.

Yeah, it sounds like I will need one of those when "applying for Social Security benefits and when applying for a U.S. passport" or 'when applying for “enhanced” drivers licenses.'

If "Proof of U.S. citizenship must be established when dealing with all levels of U.S. government," applies to traffic stops, then it sounds like it's already the law, and I should already be carrying one of those documents around with me.(?)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

* 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.
==================

So as long as you have one of those you're OK.

I don't carry any of these. Sometimes (like when I go out running) I don't carry any ID at all. Makes you wonder....

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So...where do they send him?

Better question is how would they identify his citizenship . . . right? That answer is easy.

I guess I'm not very smart because the answer isn't obvious to me.

The last time he was arrested for public intox just outside of PHX, he had no ID of any kind. His story isn't terribly unique.

This means that his ID is on file.

This means his last arrest was on file.

Here's the problem; he's arrested simply because of his skin color and lack of ID. Who knows how long it'll take the system to sort out who he is? Or if anyone will even try.

Sounds a little pessimistic.
If he wants them to know who he is, then they will know.
This is the computer age. His info is on file. If he tells them the right info, they will find him.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It's a shitty law because it allows hassling citizens just going about their daily lives.

When? You mean right after they have done something allowing them be lawfully detained and are required to produce identification?

I'd change "allows" to "encourages", but otherwise it's a correct statement. I don't know how many times it needs to be said: anyone who thinks the police will not - in actual reality - stop someone simply for being Hispanic-looking, and then create a "legitimate reason" for doing so after-the-fact, is incredibly naive.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a shitty law because it allows hassling citizens just going about their daily lives.

When? You mean right after they have done something allowing them be lawfully detained and are required to produce identification?

I'd change "allows" to "encourages", but otherwise it's a correct statement. I don't know how many times it needs to be said: anyone who thinks the police will not - in actual reality - stop someone simply for being Hispanic-looking, and then create a "legitimate reason" for doing so after-the-fact, is incredibly naive.

Agreed. So the real question returns to 'do you have a problem with them doing that?'

I'll answer no.

But the problem still lies with the feds inability to secure the border. Secure the border and the rest of this is not necessary.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the problem still lies with the feds inability to secure the border. Secure the border and the rest of this is not necessary.

Pull our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce our overall military personnel, as well as armaments and materiel expenditures, by a fairly modest 30%. That will free-up the personnel and money needed to secure our borders. Anyone who thinks that we really need to secure our borders by stationing ourselves all over the world has succumbed to the indoctrination that the military-industrial complex has fed us since the 1950s.

For decades it was anti-Commie fear mongering. Now that the Commies are more or less kaput, it's anti-(Muslim) terrorist fear-mongering. There must always be a foreign enemy to PAY to fight; thus there must always be fear to monger. Get it?

Incidentally, it will also free up enough money to fund a true national health care system like every other modern industrialized country on the planet has. How do you think all our allies are able to afford their national health care systems? Well, taxes may be part of it, but a HUGE amount of it is that the US - and not their own militaries - provides the bulk of their security umbrella, freeing up their own tax revenues to fund their domestic programs.

That's the REAL reason why the US hasn't had the sufficient excess revenues to fund national health care: because the military-industrial complex, together with the premium-raping insurance companies, would be grievously hurt; and since they are the same one who fund (a) all our Congressmen and Senators, and (b) all major news outlets, it will never happen.

So Americans just willingly bend over and grab their ankles; then beg for more.

BUT back to your point, which has some sense to it (grey-area ethics aside), what I just said is also the reason why no US administration - Dem or Repub - will ever truly secure our borders: because our resources are being squandered elsewhere (see above).

[davjohns 1]

Quote

I am curious about the potential real-life impact of the legislation. And until proven differently, I’d like to assume that racial profiling will not happen in upholding the legislation. Having said that, I’ll present a different scenario, albeit a serious one.

AZ is the winter destination of an enormous number of retired Canadians. Some call us “snowbirds”, some call us less-polite names. Regardless, Canada is a (rare) visa-exempt nation under federal US Immigration policy.

In simple terms, Canadians are allowed to enter the US for periods of up to 6 months without a “visa” that most other nationalities are required to possess.

Therefore, as Canadians enjoy golf, play bridge, shop at WallyWorld, or skydive & ride Harley’s as in my case, we have no documents to attest we are legally in the USA. Our driver’s licenses, birth certificates, social insurance numbers, provincial medical cards, and passports all point to the fact we are indeed not American.

So, Johnny, Jill, Inderjit or Jose (yes, we are a multi-cultural society too) Canuck gets pulled over for a speeding ticket and is asked to prove they are in the country legally. (Keep in mind that any traveller with a modicum of common-sense and experience does not carry their passport during their day-to-day activities to prevent loss or theft).

Parked now on the side of the I-10, dealing with a pretty regular highway patrol officer, just how do you think that would play out? I’d like to hear from somebody in law-enforcement in AZ weigh in on this... I’m sure there are some that hang out here on DZ.com.

And to further muddy the water, in my home country, I never carry my birth certificate, my social insurance card, or such. They’re all away in my safety deposit box with any other important documents. So, I assume some Americans don’t carry theirs either.

In that case, how will an American citizen be able to establish their proof of legitimacy on the side of a similar highway?

John

Many people seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room when it comes to the Arizona law. I have posted the pertinent parts of the law in this forum, but people continue to believe wild opinions over easily obtained facts.

Here is the problem with your scenario - you left out reasonable suspicion. The law is clear that (like every other crime) the officer must have reasonable suspicion that you are in the country illegally. It specifically prohibts racial profiling. So, the officer will not ask you for documentation unless there is a reason to believe you are here illegally. To do so would be the equivalent of an illegal search and the charges would never stick. Moreover, the officer would have opened the department up to action for civil rights violations.

All this law does is require Arizona law enforcement to enforce the immigration laws that have been on the books for ages.

This whole presumption that LE are all corrupt and will abuse the law is ridiculous. All laws could be used improperly and have been in the past. The only logical solution to that ridiculous argument is to eliminate all LE and head straight into anarchy.

Stop making stuff up. It makes you a liar.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

You're giving too little credit to our intelligence and too much presumption of our naivete. Sure, the language of the statute "winks and nods" in writing against profiling. But the net practical effect is to encourage stopping someone because they look Hispanic, and then justifying it afterwards. I've typed out the longer version of this in this forum so many times now that it's getting monotonous.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

You're giving too little credit to our intelligence and too much presumption of our naivete. Sure, the language of the statute "winks and nods" in writing against profiling. But the net practical effect is to encourage stopping someone because they look Hispanic, and then justifying it afterwards. I've typed out the longer version of this in this forum so many times now that it's getting monotonous.

You're assuming the law means something other than what it says and then using that assumption to justify your conclusion. And you say I'm giving you too little credit for intelligence because of this? I'm using pure logic. You are inserting an emotional reaction. I do not mean to be insulting, but you do not appear to be using your intelligence in this matter. As long as you use emotion-based arguments, there can be no logical discussion.

The law is perfectly legitimate as written. We have courts to re-direcgt any who abuse it. We've been through this many times in American Jurisprudence.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

You're giving too little credit to our intelligence and too much presumption of our naivete. Sure, the language of the statute "winks and nods" in writing against profiling. But the net practical effect is to encourage stopping someone because they look Hispanic, and then justifying it afterwards. I've typed out the longer version of this in this forum so many times now that it's getting monotonous.

You're assuming the law means something other than what it says and then using that assumption to justify your conclusion. And you say I'm giving you too little credit for intelligence because of this? I'm using pure logic. You are inserting an emotional reaction. I do not mean to be insulting, but you do not appear to be using your intelligence in this matter. As long as you use emotion-based arguments, there can be no logical discussion..

Nice try. I've worked in criminal justice, mostly in legal practice, for 30 years. I've made a living conducting statutory construction and analysis for almost as long. This is my statutory analysis, together with reasonable prediction of real-world effect in the field. I'm not getting sucked into making this about me. I stand by all the posts I've made on this subject.

[aphid 0]

Only because this seems to have been directed to me... (my initial questions have already been addressed)

Quote

Here is the problem with your scenario - you left out reasonable suspicion. The law is clear that (like every other crime) the officer must have reasonable suspicion that you are in the country illegally.

I believe I just said (for whatever reason) a snowbird is asked to prove they are in the country legally. My questions were simply about the practical application of the law.

Quote

It specifically prohibts racial profiling.

The scenario included the presumption of no profiling by the officers.

Quote

This whole presumption that LE are all corrupt and will abuse the law is ridiculous.

The scenario made no such accusations. For the record, from my experience most law enforcement officers are not corrupt.

Quote

Stop making stuff up. It makes you a liar.

Before the thread drifted to the dark vs light debate, I think it was concluded that in the State of Arizona, Canadians should now be encouraged to carry their passports at all times in the event that they are legitimately requested by an officer to prove their status.

I only hope that the AZ officers become familiar with the visa-exempt status of vacationing Canadians, and the 6 month allowance.

John

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I only hope that the AZ officers become familiar with the visa-exempt status of vacationing Canadians, and the 6 month allowance.

As long as you mind your vowels, you'll never have to worry about it, Eh?

[RackJR 0]

Quote

The law is perfectly legitimate as written.

How many laws were written legitimately, only to be used in the real world in less than legitimate fashion? We don't live in a utopia where every LEO upholds the letter and spirit of every law written. To assume that this law will be upheld that way is naive.

davjohns, please take this as a sincere question, that I honestly do not know the answer to. If an illegal immigrant is stopped for no other reason that that he/she is brown, and found to be illegal, what is the process like? How will this person find the courts? Will they be given a public defender? Will their case go before a judge? Will there be an inquiry into the possibility the law was abused, BEFORE they are deported? What would be done with this person, even if the officer was found to have acted outside the parameters of this law?

I live overseas, most of what I know about this law I've read on this forum. I have not seen answers to these questions.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[billvon 3,120]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a shitty law because it allows hassling citizens just going about their daily lives.

When? You mean right after they have done something allowing them be lawfully detained and are required to produce identification?

I'd change "allows" to "encourages", but otherwise it's a correct statement. I don't know how many times it needs to be said: anyone who thinks the police will not - in actual reality - stop someone simply for being Hispanic-looking, and then create a "legitimate reason" for doing so after-the-fact, is incredibly naive.

I don't doubt it will happen. I see it as an opportunity to rein in and handle bad LE.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...They don't. When we return to Canada, we don't have to present our passport, although most of us do because it's easier. So, if we don't present a passport to Canadian Customs, there is no record of us leaving the US on the magnetic strip on our passport(s).

Without that record, US Customs might have to make a best-guess assessment about how long a Canadian MIGHT have overstayed a previous visit if/when a Canuck attempts to re-enter and they scan the magnetic strip on their passport.

On the surface, at a quick glance, it all sounds so simple. But I would suggest... not so much.

I didn't think that the mag strip on passports was used as an entry record. I thought it was "read only".

I would think that it would get stamped on entry, good for 6 months. If you leave and return, you get a fresh stamp on the return good for another 6 months.

I would also think (hope maybe?) that the Arizona cops would exercise a reasonable amount of judgement. While a Canadian Drivers License wouldn't be official proof of legal status, it would be a pretty strong indicator of not being illegal.

FWIW, I carry my passport all the time on the road. I never know when I might end up going into Canada.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Parked now on the side of the I-10, dealing with a pretty regular highway patrol officer, just how do you think that would play out? I’d like to hear from somebody in law-enforcement in AZ weigh in on this... I’m sure there are some that hang out here on DZ.com.

Legally, a Canadian who stays more than 6 months is considered to be "out of status" but not "unlawfully present". The term "unlawfully present"--used frequently in the Arizona law--has a very precise definition under federal immigration law--and its definition, as with all things in immigration law, is not obvious and requires that people do their homework.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014