I'm just saying an overwhelming majority of people in Arizona approve of a new law (that in no way compares to thinking it is OK to treat blacks differently) that IMO is not infringing on any one's rights. If officers have a legit reason to suspect that an individual is illegal they can ask for Id. The law does not give officers permission to violate rights of Hispanics, therefore I believe it's none of our or the federal government's business. There are more than one vague law out there...Discretion must play a part. The "Red Handed" approach can't work.

 

If you are an illegal immigrant in Arizona and don't act suspicious, run from or avoid an officer, chances are you won't get asked for Id. The same goes for legals. Seriously, I don't see a big deal in the law.

 

What we do not know is what constitutes a "legit reason" under the new law. You say the law does not give officers the right to violate rights. How can you tell by the vague wording of the written law?

Was watching a show on History channel about how states got their shapes. Very interesting show, recommend it.

 

But anywhoo, it listed a couple things about New Mexico I thought was interesting and it sorta fits into this debate. 85% of the population is Hispanic. It is the only state that it's constitution is bilingual. Spanish and English are the official languages of the state.

 

Arizona originally stretched from California to Texas and New Mexico didn't exist but eventually they split Arizona, stretched it upwards and created New Mexico.

 

Actually, they were partly a part of a state that didn't cut the mustard called Deserterio or something like that. Also, included Nevada and Utah.

What we do not know is what constitutes a "legit reason" under the new law. You say the law does not give officers the right to violate rights. How can you tell by the vague wording of the written law?

 

I can only guess what a legit reason to suspect someone of being illegal may be. Something tells me that law officers that deal with them on a daily basis might just have a clue though.

 

I don't believe for one second that the law was intended to harass legal citizens. Nor do I believe officers (other than a few idiots) will take advantage of or infringe upon the rights of legal citizens. I may just be naive for being one that, for the most part, trusts law enforcement. I hope the new law helps Arizona solve the illegal problem they have. It must be pretty serious.

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©. 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.

 

Link

 

What are you all so upset about?

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©. 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.

 

Link

 

What are you all so upset about?

 

I'm still stumped as to what why we need this. How was the previous law worded differently? The above seems like what you would expect it to be today.

I'm still stumped as to what why we need this. How was the previous law worded differently? The above seems like what you would expect it to be today.

Because the Feds won't do their job.

Did some more reading of thoughts on this issue. One immigration lawyer pointed out that the US Immigration code is so convoluted that simply verifying "papers" is not enough to determine one's status. You can be a legal, for example, and not have a green card. His contention is that there is no way to train police officers on the intricacies of the immigration laws.

I wonder if opinion would still run the same on here if we had a half a million illegals residing in the Commonwealth. Just wondering.

Are we all in favor of requiring all Americans to be able to provide proof of citizenship on demand?

Am I correct that a person who is detained only to be found to be innocent of the reason being detained can sue?

 

I ask because I read that the 9th Circuit ruled in Gonzalez v City of Peoria that local officers can enforce the criminal provisions of immigration law but it was limited to criminal violations and not administrative. Seems like providing papers would fall under administrative. Again, the police should be wary of this due to potential civil liability.

Lets stick to actual debate.

 

I agree with you that they should be deported. That's not the question.

 

What happens today when an illegal gets pulled over for speeding? Isn't he/she arrested for being an illegal?

 

It's always been my understanding that the local police could do nothing about the illegal except hold them for the federal authorities. It's also been my understanding that the feds have been doing nothing due to the mass numbers and backlog involved, so local authorities been releasing them or simply not wasting their taking them into custody. This seems to give the local authorities power to do something.

If the FED's enforced this law, local police officers wouldn't have to...

It's always been my understanding that the local police could do nothing about the illegal except hold them for the federal authorities. It's also been my understanding that the feds have been doing nothing due to the mass numbers and backlog involved, so local authorities been releasing them or simply not wasting their taking them into custody. This seems to give the local authorities power to do something.

 

Thanks. That's what I was wondering.

If the FED's enforced this law, local police officers wouldn't have to...

 

Its fair to criticize the Federal govt on this issue. No question.

 

However, that doesn't mean that "anything goes."

As many of you sit here trying to paint this as wholly supported by the citizens of Arizona, I found it interesting that The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed this. They say they'll carry out their duties to the best of their abilities. But they weren't for this, and THEY'RE the ones who have to enforce it.