Video: Arizona governor signs controversial immigration bill; Update: Corrected

posted at 5:47 pm on April 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

Between this and The One’s baffling new amnesty push, looks like we’re headed for a full-blown immigration clusterfark just in time for the midterms. Sweet! Obama will use this to mobilize Latinos against the GOP’s nativistically nativist nativism and the GOP will use it as an object lesson in why Congress needs to ratchet border enforcement waaaay up so that states don’t have to take this into their own hands. Let’s get it on.

Here’s the text of the bill, by the way; the important stuff is on page 1. If statutory language isn’t your thing, try the legislative fact sheet instead. The media is telling me that this bill will do all sorts of draconian things, like require citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times. After skimming the bill, I can’t find it. I think this is the money section:

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

The alarmist theory, I guess, is that merely being Latino will be treated as “reasonable suspicion” and that if you don’t have a driver’s license or birth certificate with you when the cop asks for it, then it’s to jail you’ll be going. I don’t read it that way; Brewer said at today’s ceremony that she won’t tolerate racial profiling and issued an executive order authorizing the state police board to develop standards for “reasonable suspicion.” Article 8, Section F of the bill (on page 2) seems to say that cops can’t be prevented from checking your status, but that doesn’t mean “carry papers or go to jail.” It means they can run your name through a computer to confirm whether you’re here legally and no left-leaning municipal authority can stop them. There may be something in the bill requiring immigrants to keep proof of legal status with them, but I honestly can’t find it. Can anyone help?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update (2/25): Mea culpa — looks like I was reading the wrong version of the bill. You’ll find my thoughts on the final version here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Hell, cite cases, quote people and charge $300 an hour. Not bad.

darwin on April 24, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Like I said, not too bright.

dakine on April 24, 2010 at 7:00 PM

What you should be worried about is the enormous burden and cost millions of illegals are having on this country.

darwin on April 24, 2010 at 6:49 PM

I’m not so worried about it that I’d trust every beat cop and podunk sheriff to determine whether or not i present the ‘reasonable suspicion of illegal alien status’. This is east german stazi sh*t. Put up a fence, put troops on the border, require those who hire anyone to get documentation on their people…but don’t leave it to the damn police to determine whether someone looks like an illegal…

ernesto on April 24, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Exactly ernesto. Guys like darwin aren’t really conservatives. He responds to issues emotionally, much like those on the far left. He’s more of an authoritarian who never really thinks much more about issues than his feelings take him.

dakine on April 24, 2010 at 7:07 PM

There is nothing that violates due process in:

_

Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.
_ Requires police officers to “make a reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation. Exceptions can be made if the attempt would hinder an investigation.
_ Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500.
_ Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.

If some liberal lawyers think otherwise, than I can only hope we never put people with so little common sense and who make every twisted attempt to add extra meaning to words to achieve their self serving destructive end in any position with any responsibility in serving the law or country.

Citing bad precedent from a low IQ liberal judge provides no justification for following prior bad creative interpretations. Liberals have already lost on this one, and they will be losing big time come November. Say goodbye to your failed way of reinterpreting our founding documents.

ray on April 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM

ray, where you’d you get your law degree buddy? FYI, it’s not just liberals who think that this law may be unconstitutional?

dakine on April 24, 2010 at 7:15 PM

I’m not so worried about it that I’d trust every beat cop and podunk sheriff to determine whether or not i present the ‘reasonable suspicion of illegal alien status’.

They are trusted, or not, to do a lot more than that already.

This is east german stazi sh*t.

You must be completely unfamilar with the East German stazi.

Put up a fence, put troops on the border, require those who hire anyone to get documentation on their people…but don’t leave it to the damn police to determine whether someone looks like an illegal…

ernesto on April 24, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Hello. No one is fencing off the border. No one is putting troops on the border. No one is requiring this documentation. If you don’t like the police trying to do what has become their job, then talk to the Dereliction of Duty arse in the White House.

MB4 on April 24, 2010 at 7:19 PM

ray, where you’d you get your law degree buddy? FYI, it’s not just liberals who think that this law may be unconstitutional?

dakine on April 24, 2010 at 7:15 PM

If “liberals” are concerned about the U.S. Constitution all of a sudden, then they should be opposing most of what Emperor Obama has been doing.

MB4 on April 24, 2010 at 7:22 PM

“Liberals” concerned about U.S Constitution!

Too funny.

MB4 on April 24, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Citing bad precedent from a low IQ liberal judge provides no justification for following prior bad creative interpretations.

ray on April 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I cited a Supreme Court decision. And it wasn’t a “low IQ liberal judge”. Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the opinion, and 6 of the other justices joined her.

You’re having a rough night.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 7:39 PM

The court doesn’t give a cr*p how compelling your argument is if it isn’t based on any law.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Right … which means one day you have to learn how to make a compelling argument.

Good luck!

darwin on April 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM

ray on April 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM

This is the part everyone has a problem with:

Requires police officers to “make a reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that he or she is an illegal immigrant.

In case you haven’t spent any time researching yourself, I’ll fill you in. There’s a huge body of law going back decades where SCOTUS invalidates laws under the due process clause for being “unconstitutionally vague”. The doctrine is based upon the idea that laws must give citizens “fair notice” of what is prohibited, and laws must give LEO’s specific guidelines and directives as to how to enforce a law, so as to preclude arbitrary enforcement.
So typically vagueness can invalidate a law if 1). The law fails to provide the kind of notice that will enable normal people to understand the conduct it prohibits, or 2) If it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

This law does both. How is one to avoid looking “suspicious” to an officer other than by….not speaking Spanish or being of Mexican descent? And of course the law doesn’t give any meaningful direction to LEO’s as to how to enforce it. Inevitably they’ll just use it to racially profile, because that’s really the only meaning the law can have. The fact that the governor issued an Executive order for police departments to have guidelines on enforcement proves that she knows the law is unconstitutionally vague as is.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Like I said, low IQ.

Every time a law officer stops a vehicle they make a reasonable attempt to determine if the person has a drivers license, has insurance, is the owner of the vehicle, etc. Every time a law officer suspects there is a criminal act in process they make a reasonable attempt to determine the circumstances, including if the person entering through the window is the legal resident, etc. Every time a law officer has reasonable suspicion a criminal act has/or is taking place, they are compelled to act on those reasonable suspicions. Obviously it is necessary to have a standard for reasonable, fortunately we have one.

If liberal lawyers want to pretend the law is carte blanche to pull people off the street without probable cause, then they are obviously incorrect. Keep trying, but just when you thought your side was going to be winning, it’s already lost. Funny all the words that start with L and are so closely related; Liberal, Lazy, Loser, …

ray on April 24, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Funny all the words that start with L and are so closely related; Liberal, Lazy, Loser, …

ray on April 24, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Loggerheaded, Loopy, Limp…

Red State State of Mind on April 24, 2010 at 8:26 PM

I think MB4’s post pretty much has you pegged.

BigWyo on April 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I think that thinking is a major achievement for you. Congrats on your evolutionary-matriculation, Peking Dude.

The Race Card on April 24, 2010 at 8:31 PM

I think MB4’s post pretty much has you pegged.

BigWyo on April 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Chez Witty

The Race Card on April 24, 2010 at 8:32 PM

The doctrine is based upon the idea that laws must give citizens “fair notice” of what is prohibited, and laws must give LEO’s specific guidelines and directives as to how to enforce a law, so as to preclude arbitrary enforcement.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Don’t worry your little head…..FTA:

“Brewer said at today’s ceremony that she won’t tolerate racial profiling and issued an executive order authorizing the state police board to develop standards for “reasonable suspicion.””

Fighton03 on April 24, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Don’t worry your little head…..FTA:

“Brewer said at today’s ceremony that she won’t tolerate racial profiling and issued an executive order authorizing the state police board to develop standards for “reasonable suspicion.””

Fighton03 on April 24, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Yeah, I mentioned the EO in my post. I’d rather them include the standards in the law itself, rather than pass the buck on to the police board.

And of course, the fact that she had to issue the EO is a tacit admission that the law is unconstitutionally vague as is.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 8:42 PM

And of course, the fact that she had to issue the EO is a tacit admission that the law is unconstitutionally vague as is.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 8:42 PM

as I posted on the other thread…tell it to the feds. That is exactly how regulations are developed in several other areas.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2010 at 9:08 PM

as I posted on the other thread…tell it to the feds. That is exactly how regulations are developed in several other areas.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy she at least issued the EO. I’m just skeptical it’ll lead to sufficiently specific directives, and I’d rather them include the directives up front in the bill itself. We’ll just have to wait and see.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Ernie,ernie…ernie.

Yes I did. The point is, it doesn’t matter. It could have be an Irish brogue, or a tatoo of a potato for all I care. Officer Hernandez should not be hamstrung to perform his job because the citizen he briefly detained was actually of Russian descent and he thought the accent was an Irish brogue. Who gives a flying rats a$$? He’s serving to preserve and protect the peace of the citizens of Arizona. These things CAN be subjective because many times they simply ARE subjective. The key is, citizens are fully protected under the law because the state will have no ability to press charges. Duh!

To try to make a comparison to Nazi Germany and the asking of papers is disingenuous, and sad really. In Germany, they were not looking for Jews because they fit the profile of majority of people continuously committing an act that violates the law.

They were looking for Jews because they were Jews. They did not let them go about their rightful business after determining that they were full and equal citizens. They had other plans for the German Jew and any other Jew they could manage to apprehend.

I have “fit the profile” a couple times in my life and have been detained by the police until they were satisfied that I was not their guy. I never felt like my rights were violated because I was a “white male driving a pick-up truck”. These things happen. It was for the protection of the community. I wasn’t arrested and sent to prison for being a “white male driving a pick up truck”…

…so it doesn’t matter what tips them off, ernie.

Saltysam on April 24, 2010 at 9:41 PM

It’s good to see the anarchists still raging against the machine here.

Inanemergencydial on April 24, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy she at least issued the EO. I’m just skeptical it’ll lead to sufficiently specific directives, and I’d rather them include the directives up front in the bill itself. We’ll just have to wait and see.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 9:15 PM

But you tried to make a constitutional argument to that point that won’t hold.

Fighton03 on April 24, 2010 at 10:22 PM

If liberal lawyers want to pretend the law is carte blanche to pull people off the street without probable cause, then they are obviously incorrect.

Guys like darwin aren’t really conservatives. He responds to issues emotionally, much like those on the far left. He’s more of an authoritarian who never really thinks much more about issues than his feelings take him.

dakine on April 24, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Authoritarians, warhawks and evangelicals all present serious challenges to the idea of conservatism in the Republican Party.

ray, where you’d you get your law degree buddy? FYI, it’s not just liberals who think that this law may be unconstitutional?

dakine on April 24, 2010 at 7:15 PM

He knows that just like Prop 187 this law faces broad and formidable legal opposition. Ray’s dismissive attitude suggests to me that his emotions guide his remarks more than his legal experience and knowledge.

The Race Card on April 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM

He knows that just like Prop 187 this law faces broad and formidable legal opposition. Ray’s dismissive attitude suggests to me that his emotions guide his remarks more than his legal experience and knowledge.

The Race Card on April 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM

You project what you must feel. My dismissive attitude is because I have already followed the path to the likely conclusion, and the bulk of the law will stand. This isn’t the 90′s with a growing economy distracting the masses. The left doesn’t stand a chance with its unconstitutional methods when society is paying attention to the details and results. You have already lost and can feel it.

ray on April 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM

You have already lost and can feel it.

ray on April 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Dear Dipshite,

I want stronger border enforcement and strict sanctions against employers of illegals. I also want harsh punishments for those illegals here convicted of actual crimes.

As a conservative I stand firmly against the idea of government checkpoints and a quasi-police state dependent upon a person’s skin color.

I have no love for illegals. I have less love for bad law that will drive illegals further underground.


No sir you may not have my ID. I live right here. You may come in and have some refreshments with me and my extended-family members who have lived on this block for three generations.

The Race Card on April 24, 2010 at 11:29 PM

As a conservative I stand firmly against the idea of government checkpoints and a quasi-police state dependent upon a person’s skin color.

Do you always make straw man arguments to rail against? Must live on a wheat farm to get that much straw. Nice demonstrating my point by going unhinged.

ray on April 25, 2010 at 12:58 AM

You all seriously need to understand that what crr6 says the law says…is not what the law says. This statute does not empower police to pull someone over because of suspicion of immigration status. There has to be an independent reason to make the stop.

Further, the law does not create a requirement that people “carry their papers”. Under existing federal law, immigrants must carry their green cards at all times. That’s now an Arizona law as well. And producing the identification merely creates a presumption against the bearer being an illegal immigrant, meaning don’t arrest anyone with ID, and make the call if they don’t have it.

I see no due process violations here. I will await education from crr.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Now if someone with dark skin takes the last seat in a movie I can have them arrested and get the seat.

Dang it it good to be white!

Decider on April 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM

a quasi-police state dependent upon a person’s skin color.

The Race Card on April 24, 2010 at 11:29 PM

There you go again.

Can’t be easy being you but at least most everything has pretty much the same explanation anyway, so you have got that anyway.

MB4 on April 25, 2010 at 2:33 AM

Now if someone with dark skin takes the last seat in a movie I can have them arrested and get the seat.

Dang it it good to be white!

Decider on April 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM

White is temporary but dumb is forever.

MB4 on April 25, 2010 at 2:36 AM

White is temporary but dumb is forever.

MB4 on April 25, 2010 at 2:36 AM

Which is why this law will almost certainly be struck down by legal challenges.

Dark-Star on April 25, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Now if someone with dark skin takes the last seat in a movie I can have them arrested and get the seat.

Decider on April 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM

On what grounds, idiot?

I can’t wait to hear this.

Saltysam on April 25, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Decider on April 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM

You know, it’s kids like you that do things simply for entertainment, yet have no idea the damage that you do to health of humanity. All the while thinking your helping, and yet you are what you hate.

A pity, really.

Saltysam on April 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM

MB4 on April 25, 2010 at 2:33 AM

OK songbird.

The Race Card on April 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7