Correction: The actual Arizona immigration bill

posted at 6:01 pm on April 24, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Arizona Economics, no wonder I couldn’t find the provision in the bill ordering citizens to carry their papers at all times: Turns out I was reading the wrong version. The one I linked yesterday was drafted by the state senate, but the one that actually made it through both chambers and onto the governor’s desk is this one. Apologies for the error.

Although now that I’ve skimmed the enacted version, I’m not sure it requires citizens to carry papers either.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF 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, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. 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.

The “reasonable suspicion” requirement is still there (see yesterday’s post for more on that) but this version specifies that there have to be independent grounds for suspicion beyond race. Also new is the list of documents that someone can present to create a presumption that they’re here legally, although it’s unclear to me how that’ll work in practice. If you’re pulled over on suspicion of being illegal for whatever reason and you produce an Arizona driver’s license, does the cop then let you go (probably, in most cases) or does he get to hold you while he tries to come up with further evidence to overcome the presumption? Another open question — and this is the key for civil libertarians — is whether “reasonable suspicion” can be formed simply by virtue of the fact that the suspect isn’t carrying one of the ID types listed. If so, then cops could theoretically start pulling people aside on the sidewalk and hauling them in if they don’t produce their “papers.” I don’t read this section that way; it sounds like “reasonable suspicion” must exist before any “reasonable attempt” to verify the suspect’s immigration status is made. But if I’m misreading it and “reasonable suspicion” is satisfied if the suspect is guilty of nothing more than being Latino and forgetting his driver’s license at home, then they’re going to have a Category Five legal and political clusterfark on their hands when the first American citizens of Hispanic descent are mistakenly arrested.

There’s another section about ID later on:

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Translation: If you’re here legally and you’re caught without your “papers,” i.e. your green card, you’re going to be fined. Obviously, though, this section doesn’t apply to citizens, and the carry requirement is already part of federal law. All this does is make it a crime under Arizona law too.

The more I think about it, the more I think this law is little more than a bargaining chip Arizona’s using to make the feds get serious about enforcement. They surely realize they’ll have no end of headaches from passing this thing, but no matter how much it backfires, they’ll still get to point at Washington and say, “You drove us to these desperate measures!” — which will put that much more pressure on Congress to seal the border when it finally takes up a new amnesty bill. Newly minted immigration hardliner John McCain is already playing that angle to the hilt, which means it’s open season for the rest of the Republican caucus to follow suit. I just hope The Artist Formerly Known as Maverick is prepared for damage control if/when Arizona cops start arresting American citizens. Won’t be pretty.


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

Why do Americans currently have their heads screwed on backwards? Seriously? Law abiding citizens have to prove themselves and their desire to have “laws” enforced. Yet, law breakers should be allowed to roam free or even get a fast track past other “law abiding” LEGAL immigrants to get their citizenship. No wonder you’re all so okay with a bunch of corrupt politicians who don’t feel like they have to pay taxes, or follow the laws that the Constitution set out for running our government, or to allow the States to operate the way the Constitution proclaimed to provide.

Of course, the bottom line argument from backwards yokels who expect law abiding citizens to just STFU and sit down and let things happen like this is that the OPPOSITION is all a bunch of racist, homophobes, bigots, and hate-mongers. What I say to YOU people is, someone needs to prove they’re illegal just like someone needs to prove that we’re those names. If I have to assume they’re legal, you have NO RIGHT to assume I’m the those names. Prove it. Wanting someone to follow the laws isn’t ENOUGH proof, idiots!

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Nonetheless, there are serious constitutional issues surrounding the fact that this statute may violate certain constitutional rights of US CITIZENS.

While I NEVER said anything about the law being “iron-clad” constitutional (because I don’t make stupid extreme statements like that; only people trying to distort my writing say things like that), one thing I do know is that Federal District Judges have a very clearly mandated requirement when they consider the constitutionality of a state law; it is constitutional until PROVEN to be otherwise.

That “proof” stuff can be a bitch…especially if you are trying to PRESCRIPTIVELY GET IT STRUCK…that is, before you have any “PROOF“.

To assert otherwise is simply stupid

Jes’ sayin’…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Nonetheless, there are serious constitutional issues surrounding the fact that this statute may violate certain constitutional rights of US CITIZENS.

While I NEVER said anything about the law being “iron-clad” constitutional (because I don’t make stupid extreme statements like that; only people trying to distort my writing say things like that), one thing I do know is that Federal District Judges have a very clearly mandated requirement when they consider the constitutionality of a state law; it is constitutional until PROVEN to be otherwise.

That “proof” stuff can be a b!tch…especially if you are trying to PRESCRIPTIVELY GET IT STRUCK…that is, before you have any “PROOF“.

To assert otherwise is simply asinine

Jes’ sayin’…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM

BTW– whose pitting categories of people against each other to fight against law abiding citizens who want to enforce “laws” to those who seek lawlessness? Who wants genders against each other to fight for their cause? Who wants ethnic groups to fight against each other for their cause? Who want different races to fight against each other for their cause? Who wants different religions to fight against each other for their cause? Who wants people who differ on sexuality to FIGHT against each other for their cause? Then notice more of your fingers pointing in the opposite direction. Turn around and look in the mirror. Just like the yahoo picture in Eugene, OR claiming a no hate zone at the same time hoping for the death of person you seek to “FIGHT” against, you spend so much time looking, analyzing, and inspecting everyone else for certain qualities you miss the very same thing in yourselves. Psychologists call that “projecting”. Clean yourselves up before you go around starting a “fight” you simply cannot win here. You will NEVER change my mind and I refuse to “fight”. I seek to “UNITE” because that’s how we stand.

It’s simply sad that you think the resolution is with a Party that seeks to do the opposite of what our Founding Fathers inspired, to DIVIDE AND CONQUEROR YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS!! Tell me where I’m wrong! You simply cannot!!

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 1:37 PM

So, we have an excellent demonstration from crr6, dakine, and Race. They represent the collective well and authentically here. They lie, call names, assert pure crap, and propagate disinformation.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM

And this entirely predictable sentence demonstrates why you are an intellectually dishonest poser. Anybody who asserts anything remotely contrary to your view of things is a collectivist (your favorite overused/misused term) and/or a liar. You’re not even a true conservative. You’re an authoritarian and an intellectually lazy ideologue. BTW, to paraphrase the late Sen. Bensen, I know Atticus Finch, and you sir are no Atticus Finch.

And yes genius, we all understand that the statute is “constitutional” until a federal court says otherwise, so save the condescending BS. Also, spamming HA with links to your oh so original blog is a violation of the terms of use if I’m not mistaken.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Lots more name-calling.

Lots more falsehoods. (I don’t term MC a collectivist, for instance, though we openly disagree on this thread. Just those who obviously are part of the collective.)

And yes genius, we all understand that the statute is “constitutional” until a federal court says otherwise, so save the condescending BS.

Not your champion, crr6. He/she expressly said it was unconstitutional. Did you miss that?

I especially like your self-deputization; in addition to being the arrogance and pomposity cop, now you’re the self appointed true conservative identifier, mis/over-use decider, authoritanian identifier, and the Atticus Finch mavin, in addition to the TOU sheriff.

My God, how do you manage?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM

And yes genius, we all understand that the statute is “constitutional” until a federal court says otherwise, so save the condescending BS.

But you…purposely…missed the point of the statement…

that the law is presumptively constitutional until shown otherwise.

Now, in this case, that will require proof, whereas with Obamacare, the showing can be made on the face of the law itself.

Hope that helps. Glad…always…to be of service!

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 2:21 PM

My God, how do you manage?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM

With respect to you Rags, not that tough. Your predictable schtick makes it pretty damn easy.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM

BTW, Atticus Finch Mavin Deluxe, with what part of my piece on Atticus did you disagree?

Hmmm….?

Try it without just sputtering names, this time…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

But you…purposely…missed the point of the statement…

that the law is presumptively constitutional until shown otherwise.

Uh, no. I fully understand this to be the case. I’m simply asserting that there are very strong arguments against the constitutionality of this statute, and in my opinion one of the suits already filed will make its way to the Supremes at some point, at which time we’ll all know the actual answer. It’s absurd for anybody to claim at this point to know how things will play out.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Sorry for the screwed up quoting in my prior post.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Oh my, talking about rules and laws while advocating for the side supporting people breaking rules and laws. How nice for you.

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Oh my, talking about rules and laws while advocating for the side supporting people breaking rules and laws. How nice for you.

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Where have I advocated anything? I’ve simply made an assertion regarding the potential unconstitutionality of this statute. It’s a legal discussion. I don’t believe I’ve many any substantive comments regarding the efficacy of this statute.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Sorry, “many” should be “made”.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I don’t believe I’ve many any substantive comments regarding the efficacy of this statute.

Or anything else.

Jes’ sayin’…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Jes’ sayin’…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Good one Atticus…that rapier wit of yours never fails. I gotta tell ya though, the “Jes’ sayin’” thing is kind of played out. Evidently, you didn’t get the “Jes’ sayin’” memo.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

I miss so many memos… I sob at night.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/26/theyre-back-a-gallery-of-open-borders-extremists/

Here’s your memo.

Nice folks… People to be proud of…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva asked the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it’s “pretty disappointing” that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities.

“It’s outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers,” Pearce said Sunday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042600226_2.html?sid=ST2010042601130

How’s about a “substantive” comment on that invitation to outlawry by a COLLECTIVIST in elective office…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Here’s your memo.

Nice folks… People to be proud of…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Rags, you’re pompous and arrogant; no doubt about that. However, you’re also pretty smart (although nowhere as smart as you seem to think you are). Let’s be clear. I’m in favor of STRONG and IMMEDIATE enforcement of federal immigration law. We need to secure the border NOW. The Feds need to come down HARD on employers in violation of immigration law. The people depicted in the linked Malkin post are idiots. You’ve made a false assumption regarding my position on illegal immigration which is a bit surprising given your obvious intelligence.

Will this statute withstand constitutional scrutiny? Maybe not. Is this statue good public policy? I have my doubts. Seems like an emotional and knee jerk reaction to a very frustrating and anger inducing situation on our southern border.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM

How’s about a “substantive” comment on that invitation to outlawry by a COLLECTIVIST in elective office…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Rep. Grijalva’s request is outrageous…he’s an idiot.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM

I think the bill leaves police with a very wide loophole, which makes more than just far left people nervous.

We do know that the police have abused these laws in the past.

Will they with this one? *shrug*

Possibly.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

EXCELLENT…!!!

We agree. Where are the S’mores…? Who knows the chords for Kubaya…?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

We do know that the police have abused these laws in the past.

I can’t think of one criminal law that hasn’t been abused, or is incapable of abuse. Can anybody?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

The Feds need to come down HARD on employers in violation of immigration law.

Which points out a omission in our discussion here…

MOST of the law in question is about offenses NOT involving identifying illegals. It has teeth with respect to hiring, transportation, sanctuary, etc.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

MOST of the law in question is about offenses NOT involving identifying illegals. It has teeth with respect to hiring, transportation, sanctuary, etc.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Based on a quick and dirty analysis, no conceptual problem in that regard Rags.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Based on a quick and dirty analysis, no conceptual problem in that regard Rags.

OK, assuming arguendo that the rest of the law is neutrally implemented, what problem do you have?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Huh? Please provide links of this. You paint with quite a broad brush madam.

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 4:41 PM

OK, assuming arguendo that the rest illegal alien identification part of the law is neutrally implemented, what problem do you have?

dakine…???

Hello, is this thing on…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM

OK, assuming arguendo that the rest illegal alien identification part of the law is neutrally implemented, what problem do you have?

dakine…???

Hello, is this thing on…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM

LOL. Sorry Rags. Stuff to do and rudely neglected to “sign off” so to speak.

Admittedly, this statute may not be unconstitutional on its face. However, I’m just not convinced that it can be applied in a neutral manner in the real world by LE.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Admittedly, this statute may not be unconstitutional on its face. However, I’m just not convinced that it can be applied in a neutral manner in the real world by LE.

Which puts in the company of every other statute we could name, no? When you empower people to wear guns, use guns, and operate under color of law, you DO create a heightened potential for abuse.

I am not oblivious to the potential for bad policing here; just rather clear on how carefully this law was drafted, and optimistic that police will do their job well…as most do.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:20 PM

We’ll see Rags. Obviously, only time will tell as the statute is applied in the field by LE and as the various challenges to the statute make their way through the courts. Maybe this thing ends up being an effective political maneuver in the effort to get some movement by the Feds, but questions of constitutionality aside, I’m just not convinced this statute is good public policy.

dakine on April 26, 2010 at 6:37 PM

As to the first part, no argument here. I think it is already having a salutary effect.

I’m just not convinced this statute is good public policy.

Why?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Remember the 10th amendment? Arizona did and is leading by example with the hope the Federal level gets the message and off their butt’s an do something productive vice destructive.

MSGTAS on April 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7