Mysteries of an Immigration Law

Is Arizona's new law a menace?

After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. "I don't know," she replied. "I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn't sure what some of the law's provisions mean, he replied, "Neither is anyone else on the planet." We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.

The law says cops must inquire anytime "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." Since most of the state's illegal immigrants are Latinos, the natural impulse of police may be to interrogate every Latino with whom they cross paths.

Critics complain that approach would be racist. It would probably be illegal. In any case, Brewer says she won't allow it.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, however, sees no problem: "Ten guys in a trunk. I would think that's reasonable suspicion." Well, yes. But if cops can ask for evidence of legal status only when they find people secreted in cargo compartments, they will not be catching many interlopers.

The worst-case scenario is that Hispanics will face possible police harassment anytime they venture out of the house. Not to worry, says Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who helped draft the text.

He told The Washington Examiner that cops can ask for immigration information only when they have "lawful contact" with someone—when "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law."

In fact, the law doesn't define the crucial term. One of the dictionary definitions of "contact" is "immediate proximity," which suggests that anytime a possible illegal immigrant comes in sight of a cop, the cop has a legal duty to check her papers.

Law professor Miller says "lawful contact" could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him—something police are allowed to do—he may have established "lawful contact."

But let's suppose a cop can get nosy only if he has already intercepted someone for, say, a traffic violation. That's cold comfort for the innocent. Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression—improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

When I went to traffic school years ago, the officer teaching it strongly advised us never to argue when being issued a ticket. On the average car, he said, he could find half a dozen reasons to write up additional citations if provoked. Any of those would serve equally well to justify a stop.

Of course, even if they have reason to pull someone over, police are not supposed to demand documents unless they have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is here illegally. But—aside from instances of guys hiding in trunks—what does that mean if it doesn't mean checking anyone who looks or sounds Latino? Illegal immigrants don't normally wear shirts that say "Fence Jumpers Local 302."

Given that even the governor doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like, police may often have trouble articulating a reason for interrogating someone. In that case, the law may be largely irrelevant. If the most obvious grounds for reasonable suspicion are race-based—and thus illegal—cops may elect to do nothing more often than not.

That may be what some officials would prefer. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the policy. Winslow city administrator Jim Ferguson told The Los Angeles Times, "If we enforce this new law, we are not going to be able to afford to take care of some other pressing law enforcement issues."

So the measure could mean that overaggressive cops will put legal Hispanic residents in chronic fear of arrest. Alternatively, police may not do their jobs much differently from before.

Maybe the new law is a menace. Or maybe it's more of a hoax.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Maybe the new law is a menace. Or maybe it's more of a hoax.

    It's a menace...

    A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

    F. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Sounds good to me.

  • ||

    ...and I don't care

  • ed||

    All I know is that the bill was Godwinned before the ink in the governor's signature was dry. Roll out the boxcars, boys. Phoenix is the new Treblinka!

  • ||

    No no no. It was Godwinned when the bill encouraged the favored people to rat out those who are not doing their part in rounding up the unfavored people.

  • JoshInHb||

    Where are the death camps?

    I mean if this is a NAZI regime now, they must be putting people to death. Not sending them home.

  • ||

    30 seconds of googling
    Illegal immigrant dies in ICE custody; family says it shouldn't have happened
    and
    Suspected Illegal Immigrant Dies in Custody
    The H&R limit of two links per comment prevents me from calling attention to more cases.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    That proves it. Anybody that arrests illegal aliens is a killer, a Nazi, and antilibertarian!

  • ||

    Yes - and you are a motherfucking asshole

  • ||

    Am I the only person on the planet who thinks that ed was making a joke?

  • ||

    I mean if this is a NAZI regime now, they must be putting people to death. Not sending them home.

    They're using incinerators. Nothing remains as evidence. :)

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Incinerators made by Westinghouse, the Nazi bastards!

  • cynical||

    Well, it's sort of a camp. And people definitely die in Arpaio's jails.

  • ||

    Easy Ed, easy. You'd prefer Arizona the new Bangladesh? Let me guess you live far from the southwest.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I guess Treblinka TRUMPS Bangladesh in the eyes of tenletters

  • ||

    Ummmm. If only in the obvious sense, Treblink +s a camp. Bangladesh =s an entire country. As to the number of souls, probably comparable depending on timelines considered, until you factor in that you may well doom Arizona to being a shithole forfuckingever.

  • ed||

    It's Hogan's Heroes, but with Mexicans! Let's see, Sheriff Arpaio is Klink, Jan Brewer is Hitler, of course...but who will play Schultz?

  • ||

    Excellent analogy. A comedy about a concentration camp. Much like a cival rights concern for criminals in a city with the 2nd higest kidnap for ransom numbers. Are you Michael Kinsley??

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +5

  • Pope Jimbo||

    McCain?

  • McCain||

    I know nuuuuthing!

  • ed||

    General Burkhalter: Klink! Who is responsible for this policy?

    Klink: Hooogaaaan?

    [canned laughter]

    Hogan: No comprendo, Jefe.

    [canned laughter]

    General Burkhalter: Klink, how would you like a vacation...on the Eastern Front?

    Klink: New Mexico?

    [canned laughter, fade to black]

  • ||

    Andy Thomas would have been Schultz, but he just retired as Maricopa County Attorney to run for AG. I therefore nominate AZ state senator Russell Pearce who sponsored the law.

  • Xeones||

    Are you Michael Kinsley??

    Are you Chris Kelly?

  • ||

    "Lonewhacko" has ten letters.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Legal immigrant are already required by FEDERAL LAW to have their green card on them at all times.

    They are required to show their Green Card, upon request, BY FEDERAL LAW.

    They can't move without telling the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They can't get a job without proving citizenship (neither can I, btw, and I'm a natural citizen).

    None of this is unconstitutional. It's 70 year old FEDERAL REGULATION.

    Look, in Europe, does Germany care what Spain has for immigration policy? Does France care if the UK has more strict standards for immigrants than France does?

    No?

    Then why do people who don't live in Arizona have an opinion on their laws for their state?

  • ||

    If you are suggesting that we devolve most of the functions of the federal government back to the states, a la Europe, then I'm all for it.

    And I have an opinion on Arizona's laws because I think they are a bad idea that needs to be nipped in the bud.

    Incidentally, I am curious why you call it their state when the majority of voters in Arizona weren't born in Arizona. Why do you think an immigrant to Arizona from Illinois has more claim to call it his state than an immigrant from Mexico, given that you so blithely don't think other Americans should criticize what Arizona's legislature is doing?

  • Rich||

    Why do you think an immigrant to Arizona from Illinois has more claim to call it his state than an immigrant from Mexico

    Point of clarification: Assuming both immigrants are *legal*, it would seem they have equal claim.

  • ||

    You countenance the government far more power over society than I do.

  • Rich||

    You countenance The government countenances the government far more power over society than I do.

  • ||

    Why should I care if they're both legal? In my book, if the person from Illinois is a fat slob who cuts me off when I'm changing lanes, and the Mexican is a hard-working neighbor who I admire, the Mexican has more claim ethically speaking. Historically speaking, the Mexican also has a greater claim. Legal is a concept based on government, not humanism.

  • ||

    Depends on where that Mexican is from, doesn't it?

    I mean, if his whole family is from Zacatecas, then he's got about the same legitimate claim as a guy from Illinois as to his "belonging" in Arizona.

    That's what irritates me about the "the border crossed us" signs. No they didn't. The people who the border crossed over usually stayed put. Occasionally they left, either due to loyalty to Mexico or ill-use (like my namesake). But the great majority of the La Raza types don't have a "claim" on the Southwest any more than an Englishman.

  • JoshInHb||

    Why do you think an immigrant to Arizona from Illinois has more claim to call it his state than an immigrant from Mexico, given that you so blithely don't think other Americans should criticize what Arizona's legislature is doing?

    Huh???

    What's your point here? That if Mexico complains about this policy then its ok for Ohio to also?

    So you don't really believe in federalism?

    It's only a useful rhetorical tool to argue for things you want.

  • ||

    I was commenting on the claim that we shouldn't express an opinion on Arizona's laws because it is their state -- even though most of Arizona's voters aren't from Arizona and may in fact have lived there a shorter time than many illegal immigrants.

    I made no comment whatsoever about what Mexico says -- only what native Arizonans, immigrant Arizonans, and other Americans say.

  • "it's toasted"||

    "So you don't really believe in federalism?"

    From my understanding, Federalism doesn't apply when it comes to immigration. States have the ability to set up their own laws when it comes to US citizens moving from state to state and typically these are almost trivial; take up residency for a certain amount of time and you become a citizen of that State. But i can carry a Colorado ID in Arizona for as long as i want, and an Arizona police officer has NO RIGHT to arrest me for being ILLEGAL. Because I'm not. Immigration of NON-US-citizens is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government therefor it is questionable that it is constitutional for states to even make laws regarding immigrants from outside of the COUNTRY.

    Also, to MikeP: Europe is a Union of COUNTRIES therefor each have there own immigration policies. America is a COUNTRY made up of united STATES therefore immigration policy is decided by the Fed.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Immigration of NON-US-citizens is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government therefor it is questionable that it is constitutional for states to even make laws regarding immigrants from outside of the COUNTRY.


    It was questionable for Congress to pass hate crimes legislation- but they did so anyway.

  • "it's toasted"||

    Is that a rebuttal? If it is then i think you missed my point. I'm not saying we should leave it to the Fed's because they are good and honorable or incapable of doing ill (we can all agree that they are none of these things) I was simply making the point that this situation has nothing to do with states rights for states have never had authority over who leaves or enters our country and very little authority over who leaves or enters their state. It's set up this way under federalism so that citizens of the country can vote with their feet. So that we have the ability to escape different injustices that spring up in the states. But immigration into our COUNTRY is a matter decided by federal law. Like it or not...that's federalism.

  • Ethan Falin||

    You are both partly correct, but the point is moot, since the Arizona law doesn't attempt to change the federal law, it only seeks to enforce already existing Federal law. Something that the Feds have seemed reluctant to do.

  • ||

    TheOtherSomeGuy was drawing the analogy between Arizona's immigration policy and Spain's. I wasn't.

    But since you brought it up, the regulation of immigration is not a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, and immigration in fact was handled by individual states until the turn of the 20th century.

  • "it's toasted"||

    My apologies MikeP...I conflated your posts with another.

    But let us discuss this interesting issue:

    You say, "the regulation of immigration is not a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution"

    You are right...but we had NO immigration policy, we had essentially open borders. So if certain states decided to regulate these matters then at that time they perfectly had the right to do so...I'm not sure how many did...i wouldn't think very many but that's just me.
    Now you may say, and you would probably be correct, that the Fed actually stepped out of the constitution when it began to regulate immigration.

    Now i'm sure you can agree that welfare state + open boarders = disaster, so during the world wide socialist movement at the beginning of the century, a decision about immigration had to be made.

    Solution = abolish the welfare state.
    But this is highly unlikely. It's the goal, but highly unlikely. Therefor immigration must be regulated, and rather than each state treating foreigners differently, I think it best and most logical for the federal government to make across the board laws regarding immigration.

    Interested to read your thoughts.

  • ||

    Actually I don't agree that immigration plus a welfare state equals disaster.

    So long as welfare is not a draw for migration, I don't think the two are incompatible.

    In particular, an unlimited visa that guarantees the right to reside and work in the US, but that also guarantees no targeted welfare and is not a path to citizenship, is a fine start. Add to that a law that said that citizen children are on the welfare schedules of their parents, and I think the "problem" is completely solved.

    Amnesty could be granted tomorrow by handing out these visas to today's illegal aliens. All they are looking for is a legal status of residence and a legal status of work. Fortunately, that's all the government is obligated to provide.

  • "it's toasted"||

    "Actually I don't agree that immigration plus a welfare state equals disaster."

    That's not what i said. I said open boarders, not immigration and your arguments do nothing to dispute what i said. I'm no close the boarders guy, and the idea of a wall around our country induces vomiting and wild spats of rage that i sometimes find hard to control. Most everything you said i agree with, but you aren't talking about open boarders, your talking about a well regulated means of entry. Furthermore, regulation that is nationwide and dictated by the fed.

    I see little disagreement in our dialogue, only misunderstanding.

  • "it's toasted"||

    Perhaps i should clarify:

    Open boarders: no regulations or laws issued by state or federal governments.

    Immigration: regulated by the federal government with the intent of streamlining migration and doing so in an orderly fashion.

  • ||

    Sorry, I should have said "open borders". Would have saved a couple posts.

    I am completely for open borders. Nonetheless, I do allow the government the authority to prevent the migration of actually harmful persons: foreign agents or soldiers, terrorists, violent felons, carriers of contagion.

    As far as my unlimited visa idea, current illegal immigrants are but a subset of its carriers. Anyone who shows up at a consulate or the border and passes a background check should get it.

  • "it's toasted"||

    "I am completely for open borders. Nonetheless, I do allow the government the authority to prevent the migration of actually harmful persons: foreign agents or soldiers, terrorists, violent felons, carriers of contagion."

    But that is not "open boarders" at least in the way that i understand the term. That sounds to me like well regulated immigration, of the kind i support. I feel that we are slipping down a semantics wormhole Or perhaps I'm missing a subtle point you were trying to make.

  • ||

    The difference between accepting 99% of prospective immigrants and rejecting 99% of prospective immigrants brings me to call the former open borders and the latter highly regulated immigration.

    If you support the former but want to call it well regulated immigration, then who am I to argue.

  • "it's toasted"||

    haha. Had i feeling it was semantics. let us agree to...agree.

  • ||

    If in your kindness you allow the government the authority to prevent the immigration of actually harmful persons, you don't have an open border. Are you actually this dense?

  • ||

    I am willing to be convinced that there is no need for government to screen anyone at the border. I haven't heard the case. Do you have a good one?

    But it seems to me that even an anarchy would take it upon themselves to check that those entering the territory are not threats to the society.

  • ||

    "But since you brought it up, the regulation of immigration is not a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, and immigration in fact was handled by individual states until the turn of the 20th century"

    Utter nonsense. The power to enforce borders and regulate immigration is direct in Sec. 8 which also covers repelling invasions. Never have the states regulated numbers and/or nationality of immigrants.

  • ||

    Immigration is not naturalization. Immigration is also not invasion.

    And of course the states have never regulated numbers and/or nationality of immigrants: prior to 1890, when the states ran immigration, there were no restrictions on numbers and/or (at least until 1882) nationality of immigrants.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    @ "it's toasted"

    Europe is a Union of COUNTRIES therefor each have there own immigration policies. America is a COUNTRY made up of united STATES therefore immigration policy is decided by the Fed.

    Wow, did you have a real zero for a high school civics teacher, or what???

    Germany is a STATE. Italy is a STATE. China is a STATE. Just like Arkansas or California is a STATE.

    That's why we call their leaders "Heads of STATE".

    In fact, that's the way the US was setup before the Civil War. We were a voluntary association of independent STATES.

    The STATES came together to form the Federal Government, not the other way around. That's why the US Constitution had to be ratified. That's why the State had to meet certain criteria (to prove that they were already a STATE) before they were allowed to join the Union.

    You need to buy a dictionary, son.

  • "it's toasted"||

    Haha. Public school. Didn't have a civics teacher.
    But i have a couple dictionaries. And yes all countries can be called States. Government itself can be called the State. But reasonable people don't call Kansas or Arizona Countries. The definition of a state in use in our country is; political unites that make up a larger federal body. This body would be our Country. And you're right, the states did come together to ratify the constitution, and forfeited some of there own sovereignty by uniting under a federal body.

  • "it's toasted"||

    "We were a voluntary association of independent STATES."

    Were we? The civil war tells me that there was nothing voluntary about it. We liked to think that we were. But if disassociation means war then i don't think the association is voluntary.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    -Mike P "Incidentally, I am curious why you call it their state when the majority of voters in Arizona weren't born in Arizona. Why do you think an immigrant to Arizona from Illinois has more claim to call it his state than an immigrant from Mexico, given that you so blithely don't think other Americans should criticize what Arizona's legislature is doing?"

    You're losing the thought of this thread, Mike P. The voters of Arizona may have immigrated from another state or country (including Mexico), but they are legal immigrants and citizens of this country and Arizona (hence the right to vote in Arizona).

    The immigrants from Mexico, whether legal or illegal, must be citizens of the United States and citizens of Arizona, or they do not have a right to call it their state.

    Legally. Citizen. Illegally. Not a citizen. Pretty simple actually.

  • ||

    they do not have a right to call it their state.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean much to you, does it.

    At any rate, what of Arizonans born and raised in Arizona? They see themselves overrun by immigrants born in other states who pass laws that change a century and a half of relationship between Arizona and Sonora. Have you so little respect for their notion of Arizona?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Mike P " 'they do not have a right to call it their state.'

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean much to you, does it."

    Even though it isn't in any way "their state", you are arguing that they have the right to call it "their state" under the aegis of Free Speech.

    Yeah, the "holocost never happened". Free Speach! Free Speach! It must be true because of Free Speach!

    Sheesh.

  • People Power Hour||

    You're essentially correct. Who really gives a rat's-bloddy-ass about such an arm-pit of a state as Arizona? Not I!

  • CaliChick||

    I think part of the problem they are talking about is citizens being harassed. A citizen has no legal requirement to carry ID. They need a driver's license when operating a vehicle, a passport when crossing a border, and ID in a few other cases.... but just walking down the street they don't have to have it. So what is a citizen to do if engaged by the police and they LEGALLY have no ID to show?

    ....and as a Libertarian I loathe at the idea of being required to carry ID at all times.

  • Klink||

    Does an illegal alien have a reasonable right to privacy?

  • Klink||

    In other words, if they have no papers, do they still have a right "to be secure in their...papers"?

  • "it's toasted"||

    Explain how an officer can visually tell the difference between a legal citizen and an illegal and you may have a point.

  • ||

    thats a piece of cake.

    born and raised in the biggest arm pit city of AZ....YUMA! you know in a city that is 70% hispanic which is a U.S. citizen and which is not and even more so which non citizens are illegal or legal.

    I would rather have it handled at a local level where everyone knows everyone and not some ex marine gringo from the midwest who doesnt know jack shit but only white or brown skin color.

  • Klink||

    You mean non-locals think they can do a better job of law enforcement than locals? What a concept!

  • "it's toasted"||

    Ill address Carl first;

    I asked HOW an officer can know the difference, and your response is that they do because they live there?...?... Please try again. Furthermore, Yuma didn't pass a City ordnance, the state of Arizona passed a law...So Am i supposed to believe that everyone in AZ knows each other? I think not.

    Now for Klink:

    You said, "You mean non-locals think they can do a better job of law enforcement than locals? What a concept!"

    I'm sure some do, but i'm not among them. What i do believe is that immigration LAW is best handled by the Federal Government so that immigrants don't have to face a different laws in each and every state. I do however believe that local police are the best means of ENFORCING these federal laws. This doesn't come from an idea that the fed knows best. It comes from the idea that each state creating it's own immigration laws is a recipe for a putrid meal.

  • ||

    its toasty

    your argument is false and you only enforce my point even more. do you think maricopa or pima county law enforcement will be in yuma county enforcing this state law?

  • "it's toasted"||

    No, but the state police force, or the state patrol sure as hell will. I know they are moderately local but they surely cross county lines.

    Disaster relief analogy doesn't apply. It's the difference between natural disasters and man-made disasters. Localized relief is by far the most efficient and effective method in case of natural disasters. you'll hear no argument from me on that one. But the immigration disaster we now face is caused, mostly by federal law and thus man-made. So rather than implementing bad laws at the state level to make up for bad laws at the federal level, let's fix the damn federal laws. Furthermore judging by your arguments i gather you're probably a man of the right.(could be wrong, so if i am, you may as well stop reading) So you must be aware that this sort of law, whether good intentioned or not, is fuel for the lefts bonfire of racial hyperbole, which only makes it a more difficult task to get good people in at the federal level that could give you national reform that you would like. This law is pushing Obama and his cohorts closer to reform of his own, which, judging by his track-record, i don't think either of us would like.

  • ||

    there is no state police force. theres DPS which patrols the highways. Im not on the right either but Libertarian and not "social libertarian" or "conservative libertarian" but only libertarian because as a Libertarian you cant have it both ways.

  • "it's toasted"||

    DPS patrols the highways and investigates crime. According to the DPS's website (www.azdps.gov/About/Organization); "The criminal investigations division (of the DPS) provides statewide criminal investigations, specialized enforcement activities, and high-risk tactical response in support of other federal, state, tribal, and local criminal agencies. The Division's primary investigative responsibilities are narcotic trafficking, fugitive apprehension, organized crime, intelligence, vehicle theft, gangs, human smuggling, computer and financial crimes, as well as major criminal investigations and sensitive special investigations when requested by other criminal justice agencies."

    Doesn't seem like they're limited to patrolling the highways.

  • ||

    i also like to apply laws like this to scenarios such as disaster relief. i feel a city should have SOLID plans in plans in case of a natural disaster or such. There is something just a little more kosher knowing my neighboor and I would be working together to help the community out instead of a convoy of duece and halfs leaving NORTHCOM headquaters back east to "help" me.

    When was it about a year ago or so the floods or something like that up in North Dakota and they refused FEMAs help and they did just fine taking care of it themselves and it really chapped FEMAs ass that they were said to keep out...

    someone perhaps can shed light on this for me?

  • ||

    "plans in place" blaaaahh

  • ||

    Yes, it's human right, you motherfucking scumbag.

  • jk||

    A citizen has no legal requirement to carry ID.

    I'm pretty sure a citizen can be detained for failure to produce "proper" identification, even if they are not charged with a crime.

  • ||

    You would be wrong then.

    You can under certain circumstances be required to "identify yourself" but that is not the same thing as producing ID.

    And the circumstances be required to "identify yourself" should be limited to case where there are reasonable grounds for you to be suspected of wrongdoing.

  • jk||

    In what manner may one identify themselves other than by producing government issued identification?
    As far as being suspected of wrongdoing goes, I've been stopped for walking down the sidewalk with my shirt not tucked into my pants. I was told that because some people hide weapons in their belt under untucked shirts, that gave the officer probable cause to stop me, search me, demand identification, question me as to where I was going, where I came from, and what my intentions were, before finally allowing me continue to go about my business.

  • ||

    In what manner may one identify themselves other than by producing government issued identification?

    Ummm...the way it was always done until twenty or so years ago.

    By STATING one's name. If there's reasonable cause you can be arrested whether your identity is known or not.

    My point is that we got along just fine for years and years on the assumption (often ignored by overzealous cops) that your identity is nobody's business but yours unless you have done something wrong.

    In the case that you relate, had you not been carrying ID you could very well have been detained and "taken downtown". But, you could not be charged with any crime solely for not having physical ID.

    Not until we finally change this country into France you won't be able to anyway.

  • ||

    Never looked at the NYC stop and frisk policy?

    Just simply stating your name isn't proof of who you are. People lie to cops about that, particularly if they did something wrong. Being that they are required (haha) to have reasonable suspision of a crime to stop you, it's easy to understand that cops won't trust you to give your name on the honor system. If you dont't have an ID, you can be detained until they get the proof they want, up to 48 hours (I think).

    Your right in that it's not a crime at this point. But that won't keep you out of jail.

    ""Not until we finally change this country into France you won't be able to anyway.""

    I'm not exactly sure what that means. But I have a feeling we are getting there if not having ID can equal some jail time, albeit short.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +2

  • Chris||

    And you would have been fucked over.

  • ||

    As far as being suspected of wrongdoing goes, I've been stopped for walking down the sidewalk with my shirt not tucked into my pants.

    I suspect it was more likely the toilet paper hanging out the back.

  • Klink||

    reasonable grounds for you to be suspected of wrongdoing

    That's the pertinent language in the bill, "wrongdoing" being the usual offenses as well as breaking the law by being in the U.S. illegally.

  • ||

    Herr Klink

    On what reasonable grounds is one to be suspected of breaking the law "by being in the U.S. illegally"?

    See my posts down the page for more on this.

  • ||

    Thought experiment: A car is pulled over for speeding. Driver cannot produce either license or identification when stopped. Driver speaks with a heavy (to American ears, anyway) accent. Officer sees passengers attempting to hide from view. Vehicle bears out-of-country plates. (This being Arizona, let's say they're BC plates.)

    Would you or would you not say this would constitute probable cause to investigate for immigration violation?

    Note that, under the very-PC program of "awareness" training ordered by Brewer alongside her signature of SB 1070, this is likely the minimum level of suspicious behavior necessary to trigger serious investigation.

    Note also that, if the driver simply produced a valid driver's license -- required in all states if operating a motor vehicle -- or a valid passport -- required of all visitors to the US to be carried on their person at all times during their stay -- there can be no further investigation under SB 1070. Can't ask other passengers for ID. Can't inquire about their status. Can't put them in jail for taking their kids out for bleedin' ice cream.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Wrong!!!

    In NYC, we have a STOP-AND-FRISK program where you WILL BE ASKED FOR ID. This mostly applies to blacks/hispanics and has been going on for about 15years with the blessing of all non-blacks/hispanics in NYC. However, they can stop whites as well.

    If you are stopped by police in NYC and you do NOT have identification. You will be arrested, finger printed, and detained until your records come back.

  • ||

    This is infuriating, all the more so since people in a position to change it do not care, so long as they and their friends and families are not targeted. The Red Dog (paramilitary thugs) squad does this in Atlanta in poor black neighborhoods. If they did it in rich white neighborhoods, people would be marching in the streets.

  • jk||

    This happened to me (a pasty white guy) in the pasty white People's Republic of Boulder.

  • ||

    I noted upthread that overzealous cops not withstanding, that while you might be detained, harassed andf otherwise annoyed, you cannot actually be charged with any crime solely for failure to carry any identification documents.

    A less than reassuring distinction to all the people who tend to be subject to police harassment (on account of youth, race, hair length or whatever) to be sure, but a distinction nonetheless.

  • Alice Bowie||

    YOUR WRONG!!!

    Once brought to the station for not having ID; the police will check you for outstanding warrants. If none found, you WILL BE CHARGED with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Charges that will later be dropped in almost 99% of the cases

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "Alice Bowie|4.29.10 @ 10:40AM|#
    YOUR WRONG!!!

    Once brought to the station for not having ID; the police will check you for outstanding warrants. If none found, you WILL BE CHARGED with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Charges that will later be dropped in almost 99% of the cases"

    BS meter pegged.

  • jk||

    If you recall from my first post on the subject (where you said I was wrong), I never said anything about being charged with a crime. I said that you can be detained for failure to "properly" identify yourself.
    Are we in agreement?

  • ||

    Alice Bowie

    Failing to actually identify yourself, ie not telling the nice officer your name could be charged as disorderly conduct or resisting arrest and also it is a crime to give a false identity.

    But it is not a crime to not carry ID.

    My statement stands, you cannot be charged with a crime solely for failure to carry any identification documents.

    The other things you mention are unlawful abuses of authority and it's a shame more people don't fight them. But I understand completely why they don't.

    jk

    Yes, we are in substantial agreement.

    Se above my reference to "unlawful abuses of authority".

    One simple reason why Arizonans should oppose this law no matter how they feel about immigration, legal or otherwise, is that the police in this country are alrady out of control, this law just gives them one mor opening to abuse their authority.

  • jk||

    I'm with you there.
    The best way to prevent the abuse of power is to not give out too much of it. Because once you give it up, it is nearly impossible to take it back.

    IMO illegal immigration is a symptom, not a cause, and treating symptoms while ignoring causes does nothing to solve the problem.

    The cause is a demand for labor, IMO created by social programs that allow lazy Americans to choose comfortable poverty over honest work.

    However since dismantling the welfare state is not an available option, I'm at a loss for a solution to the problem.

  • ||

    "choose comfortable poverty"? That is a myth. Before the mid 90s, around many parts of the rural US, natives could and did find farm work for fairly decent wages. But once the flood of Mexican invaders hit, wages dropped by almost half. The same goes for many construction jobs. But hey, construction laborers and rednecks working the tobacco fields don't hang out in ivory towers.

  • jk||

    "choose comfortable poverty"? That is a myth.

    When public assistance pays better than working, the logical choice is to stay at home. This creates a labor vacuum that illegals are more than happy to fill. Not only that but these people know how to work. They're not coddled woosies who have been told all their life that everyone is a winner, that life is fair, that they deserve all kinds of things just because... no, these people work. I can tell you from personal experience that anyone who refers to Mexicans as lazy has never worked beside any.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "One simple reason why Arizonans should oppose this law no matter how they feel about immigration, legal or otherwise, is that the police in this country are alrady out of control, this law just gives them one mor opening to abuse their authority."

    BS meter did complete 360 and started to smoke.

  • ||

    If you have never been arrested or had your fingerprints taken, what records come back?

  • jk||

    None. And when they find nothing they let you go. Happened to me several times in Boulder. With my long hair and concert shirt not tucked into torn jeans, they correctly profiled me as someone who was not a trust fund college kid able to hire a lawyer to defend myself.
    So they'd ask me for ID and threaten all kinds of whoopass on me if the check came back with any warrants.
    It never did. But they kept trying. Over and over they tried. Finally I got the message and moved away.

  • Alice Bowie||

    If u work in banking or other industries...chances are, your fingerprints are out there

  • Klink||

    Life must be hell for you, Alice.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100430/cm_huffpost/557721

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    As a Libertarian who hates to have to provide ID, you must really get upset at having to provide a username/password to prove who you are when you log into your e-mail...

  • ||

    Actually there is no requirement to prove citizenship, there is a requirement to show that you are a legal resident (usually by producing a valid Driver's License and Social Security Card).

    And that requirement is less than twenty years old, rather than seventy as you suggest.

    Prior to that you only had to give a Social Security number to get a job, and that was only to facillitate withholding of FICA and Income Tax.

    As for:

    They are required to show their Green Card, upon request, BY FEDERAL LAW.

    Technically true, but the number of people authorized to make that request are exceedingly small and do not include State and Local law enforcement personel.

  • Lassiter||

    I do not live in Arizona, But I support the law, You are so right, people that do not live over there, cannot imagine what Arizona is going through. Arzonans have my sympathy. My only wish is for that law to have a domino effect to the rest of the states

  • ||

    In the absence of feds following the constitution (border protection) the people of Arizona had to make a tough choice. Incompetence by DC has forced the people to curtail their own liberty to perserve their lives and property.

  • People Power Hour||

    Incompetence by DC = Incompetence by AZ.

    Gotcha.

  • ||

    ""In the absence of feds following the constitution (border protection) the people of Arizona had to make a tough choice.""

    Just because the feds fail to enforce federal law, doesn't give states the authority to usurp the U.S. Constitution on naturalization authority and U.S. defense (border protection).

    Basically, your just making an excuse as to why you think the state has a right to usurp the U.S. Constitution. By the same standard you could aruge the feds failure to enforce existing federal gun laws give the states the right to usurp the U.S. Constituion.

  • ||

    The states gave the authority, they have every right to take it back.

  • jk||

    Didn't states try to take back that authority a hundred fifty years or so ago?
    If I recall correctly it didn't work out very well for them.

  • cynical||

    They didn't have access to nukes back then.

  • ||

    There is no Constitutional provision granting exclusive authority to the Federal government re: immigration. Therefore, it cannot be "usurped" by state action.

  • ||

    Almost forgot: there is, however, an explicit expressed Constitutional prohibition against states entering into treaties or agreements with foreign nations. Anybody recall the Democratic People's Republic of California trying to sign up on climate change with ... Quebec? I forget, but some foreign nation. Who called them on that one? Nobody, because it was part of the "correct" view of the world.

  • ||

    Arizonas immigration law reminds me of the outrage over stopping drivers for breathe testing. What does a drunk driver look like? Who knows maybe like a Kennedy? Maybe like a Bush? In any case I think they had licenses which they had to produce for the police.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "What does a drunk driver look like?"

    Ask Alice. She makes up hypothetical situations all day.

    I am sure she will say something like 'they look like black people, and hispanic people and all the downtrodden in this hell hole of a country. If those over priviledged white people ever got pulled over for DWI, there would be national OUTRAGE!'.

  • Colin||

    I'm often mistaken as Hispanic. In fact, a few years ago I got roughed up a little by the Man when they got an anonymous tip about a Hispanic man wielding a gun.

    I won't be going to Arizona any time soon. Which is sad because it's a gorgeous state.

  • ma||

    So if Arizona cannot make a state law saying it's illegal to be an illegal alien in the state because that's a federal law or whatever, then how in the hell do the states have their own drug laws that can be enforced?

  • ||

    I assume that post didn't sound as stupid in your brain as it looks on my screen. Which says a lot about your brain.

  • ||

    Either it's a stupid comment or he's using sarcasm to make a good point about enforcing laws against victimless crimes.

  • ||

    Yes, that occured to me after I clicked submit.

    Which says something about my brain too, I suppose. :)

    One should always keep one's Sarcasmometer(TM) properly calibrated, shouldn't one?

  • ||

    I always note typos, spelling and grammar errors and missing and extra letters after I click submit too.

    But that's my keyboard's fault. :)

  • ||

    "One should always keep one's Sarcasmometer (TM) properly calibrated, shouldn't one?"

    Yep, esp. on this site!

  • ||

    So, what he's essentially saying is that we don't need borders?

  • ||

    Grrrr! I'm a libertarian! But I'm an authoritarian when it means stepping on anyone who doesn't look like me. Why is this so hard to understand?

  • ||

    +1

  • .||

    anyone who doesn't look like me

    Are you white? There are plenty of illegals who look just like you. What makes you think all illegals are brown? Racist.

  • ||

    Yes, but who is it that gets harassed everytime someone takes it into their heads to conduct a crusade against the "illegals"?

    Hint, it ain't the Brits and Canucks working under the table in construction and bars and restaurants in Central Florida. Mind you, the recession has taken care of that "problem". I'm also kind of surprised, I can see Canadians going under the radar (they almost speak like us, after all), but how do all the Limeys, Scots and Micks do it?

    Such sweeps do tend to impactp a decent number of Puerto Ricans and other darker hued citizens (naturalized and native), though.

  • jk||

    wop's up? how's your dago?

  • ||

    Doesn't have a damn thing to do with looks, but about culture. Yes, some cultures are better than others.

  • ||

    Yes, and the american culture with its murderous wars and its puritan trash is not one of the 'better' cultures.

  • Pace||

    Is there really a mystery about how this will play out?

    Cops are already well versed in including "furtive gestures" (suspicious movements) and "nervous appearance" into every police report.

  • JoshInHb||

    Of course, even if they have reason to pull someone over, police are not supposed to demand documents unless they have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is here illegally.

    Everytime I've been pulled over for a traffic violation I've had to show a drivers liscense. Pretty sure every on else does also.

    You're letting the socialists whip you into a hissing fit for their own perposes.

    You need to calm down, take your lithium, prozac of a hit and calm the fuck down. AZ didn't morph into Nazi Germany this week. There aren't any death camps there.

  • ||

    Yes, you're absolutely right, allusions to Nazi Germany are ridiculously hyperbolic.

    Suggestions that we're becoming just like France, however, are not.

  • Zenmaster||

    I will NOT become a rude, snobbish Jerry Lewis fan!

  • jk||

    a)Jerry Lewis
    b)David Hasselhoff
    c)death

  • ||

    If by becoming like France you mean a large underclass with no ties to the native culture causing lots of trouble, then you are correct.

  • ||

    I rather think he was referring to France being the laughable pantload shithole it is.

  • ||

    As I have said before in threads on this particualr topic, even border hawks should be concerned about the potential for harassment of citizens and legal aliens inherent in some interpretations of this law.

    If the law says that local officials need to do something if they arrest and illegal alien then it is redundant since I'm fairly sure that federal law already reqires notification of ICE if an alien, whether legal or not is arrested. And even if there is not, there is absolutely no requirement to not notify ICE in either case.

    Of course, they're also required by federal law (in this case a treaty) to notify an alien's consulate if the alien is from a country that is a party to that treaty.

    In case your wondering, the reason ICE might be interested in the arrest staus of a legal alien is that many crimes require the deportation of aliens, either at the end of or instead of their sentence. I am, of course, speaking of the law as it is, not he way I think it ought to be.

  • ||

    As I have said before in threads on this particualr topic, even border hawks should be concerned about the potential for harassment of citizens and legal aliens inherent in some interpretations of this law.

    I'd prefer a wall. Sure there are arguments against it. It's not perfect, but it's better than a police state with document checkpoints at every intersection. At the other end, if immigration laws aren't going to be enforced, it would be better to repeal them altogether.

  • cynical||

    Walls also keep people in. Frankly, the way this country keeps barreling toward socialism, I'd rather be able to defect to Mexico one day without dealing with armed guards and barbed wire...

  • ||

    Any officer who wants to make a stop can easily come up with some trivial transgression—improper lane change, going 1 mph over the speed limit, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

    This is why I drive the speed limit, signal when changing lanes, and come to a complete stop when at a stop sign.

  • jk||

    I think the point was that there are so many traffic laws on the books that if a cop follows an imperfect human being long enough the imperfect human being will eventually give the officer reason to pull the imperfect human being over.

    Not everyone is perfect like you.

  • ||

    Yes, I did miss the point. Thanks for the correction.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    How many feet from the turn and/or intersection do you pop on your signal? Because 1' under 100 (for example) is a violation (Failure to Properly Signal).

  • ||

    ""This is why I drive the speed limit, signal when changing lanes, and come to a complete stop when at a stop sign.""

    I know someone who did all that and was pulled over because the overly too good driving was deemed suspicious within it's self. Kid you not.

  • ||

    Indeed, overly cautious driving is considered probable cause for a DUI stop.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Indeed, overly cautious driving is considered probable cause for a DUI stop.


    Has that ever been cited by a court as probable cause for a DUI stop?

  • ||

    I have a friend in law enforcement and he told me that driving below the speed limit MIGHT be an indicator of DUI, where some drunks try to overcompensate for their impaired condition. And though I can't cite any court cases without doing some research it would not surprise me at all to see listed as a probable cause factor. Impeding the natural flow of traffic, as by driving too slowly on a highway, drunk or not, can be as dangerous as going too fast.

  • jk||

    I could see driving over cautious while stoned, but drunk?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "I know someone who did all that and was pulled over because the overly too good driving was deemed suspicious within it's self. Kid you not."

    Bullshit meter hopped off the desk and ran out the door screaming.

  • Scooby||

    You don't actually have to do anything wrong. The cop only has to say that he saw you doing something wrong. Don't rely on your perfect lawfulness being a defense against cop perjury.

  • Some dude||

    Given that even the governor doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like...

    Another reason writer said he has hired unauthorized immigrants. How did he know they were unauthorized?

    "Hey, you wouldn't happen to be an illegal immigrant would you?"
    "Si"
    "OK, just checking. You can start working now."

  • The Rule of Law||

    That's it, I'm outta here.

  • Hacha Cha||

    lawful contact will be interpreted as any encounter, such as a cop coming up and asking for your ID. if you don't exercise your rights you end up falling into their trap with self incrimination. does this require everyone to carry proof of nationality ID? if not, then it is likely this will only be a symbolic law, but I can definitely see it being used as a way to expand the amount of people stopped and investigated by police. even if it ends up being symbolic, its a terrible law that smacks of "papers please" communism/fascism/statism.

  • ||

    ""its a terrible law that smacks of "papers please" communism/fascism/statism.""

    America, isn't really offended by "papers please" anymore. Our newer generation has no problem giving virtually full disclosure of their lives. I'm now the odd man out with friends and family since I won't create a Facebook page and share my life via cloud computing.

    If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide is much more envogue today. Look how the definition of privacy is changing. It's no longer about keeping things from view. It's about the authorization to view.

  • ||

    This article ignorantly perpetuates more disinformation of the new Arizona law (and intentionally so). I was a federal law enforcement officer for 13 years; and nothing, repeat nothing, in this Arizona law is novel, or provocative, or overly injurious to our civil liberties. Also, as emotions run wild, and as ideological predispositions rule the day, it's funny (sad) to see just how little the 'average person' knows about the rudimentary process of law enforcement. (Hell, I'm no plumber, but at least I don't go around spreading lies about plumbing.) So, let's knock down three primary, bullshit strawmen right now. To Wit:

    (1) Lawful Contact: Yes, 'lawful contact' is intentionally broad and can mean a lot of things--including both a traffic stop, AND a scenario where someone willfully approaches a cop. If I'm drunk in public, and I walk up to a cop and ask him for directions, the cop may suspect I'm drunk, and my dumb ass may go to jail. (It's been this way for time immemorial.) Ultimately, in each prosecution/deportation case under the Arizona law, a judge will determine if lawful contact was established; this will be a prerequisite before any case can proceed. (I'll likewise bet that judges will adopt a very strict standard.)

    (2) Reasonable Suspicion: Again, if you don't know that this extremely robust legal definition/phenomenon existed well before you were born, you are willfully ignorant. We are all subject to 'reasonable suspicion' by law enforcement every day of our lives. Take the scenario where my public, drunk ass walked up to a cop and asked for directions. First, it's important to know that reasonable suspicion is established by a 'totality of circumstances'; meaning, one piece of evidence in isolation is almost always useless. So, what does this evil cop have to do to take me to jail (because that's what cops love to do--harass and torture the citizenry). Well, he'll likely need to convince a jury that he thought I was drunk for a few reasons: I was slurring my words; I reeked of booze; I was disoriented; I couldn't remember where I lived; my pupils were dilated; my skin was flush; my equilibrium or coordination was off; I just vomited in the street; my clothes were disheveled; I exhibited both emotional euphoria and sadness; etc. Now, all these things would definitely convince a jury of public drunkenness; only one of them would be wholly insufficient. Just as under the Arizona law, race alone as suspicion, will be wholly insufficient.

    For fun, let's play a 'reasonable suspicion' game with immigration status as the subject matter. (In school, law enforcement actually does role playing to learn this vital technique). Let's pretend I'm white, and am an illegal immigrant living in Germany. How will German law enforcement, after a legal traffic stop, reasonably determine that I am in Germany illegally? Well, let's pose some simple questions: do I have a German ID, or library card, or recent piece of local mail; do I speak good German; do I look German (actually I do); can I recall where I live and work in Germany; can I recall specifically where I'm going; do I know and can I describe the town in which I was stopped; where do my kids go to school; where did I go to school; did I just open my wallet and accidentally reveal a U.S. driver's license; are there other people in the car who can vouch for me as being German; can I get someone on the cell phone who can vouch for me or assist the situation in any way; am I dressed like a German, or am I wearing my California flip flops and Ocean Pacific shorts; do I have an L.A. Lakers bumper sticker on my car; is my car registered to me, at an address in Germany; etc. Any one of this things, in isolation, is ridiculously useless in proving immigration status; but, taken as an ensemble, I bet those cops will figure out that I'm from southern California. And I bet this can all be done in 10 minutes or less.

    (3) Concurrent Jurisdiction: Some seem to believe that local law enforcement shouldn't enforce federal immigration law. I call these people ignorant anarchists. It's not a state crime to counterfeit U.S. dollars, nor is it a state crime to import in the trunk of your Honda radioactive fissile material from Canada. These are both violations of U.S. federal statute. Would you want local law enforcement to look away, when they reasonably discover such activity? Also, we have allowed California to pass industrial CO2 emissions laws; how in the world should states be allowed to enact their own CO2 laws, thus preempting the federal government in both method and treaty? Well, because fighting CO2 pollution is en vogue; enforcing existing federal immigration law is not en vogue--at least amongst the political elite.

    Less spin, more thinking, folks.

  • ||

    I think that the fact that someone is from another country does not provide reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally. If it does, then I think the Arizona cops ought to raid diners, motels and other facilities around the Grand Canyon. You'll find lots of foreigners there!

    Oh, wait, I forgot, they're mostly white or Asian, not Mexican... that's different...

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Yeah, that's where all the illegal immigrants hang out.

  • ||

    This.

  • DT||

    I think you are wrong. And your analogies aren't really valid. Facebook is voluntary, and while many people do chose to post personal information there is always a backlash against Facebook when they try and decrease consumer privacy.

    But anyhow, posting personal information by choice is very different than being forced to do so without suspicion (based on skin color?) by authorities.

    The definition of privacy is changing, but I think this law is unconstitutional and hope our definition of privacy never includes such as view.

  • ||

    Maybe the new law is a menace. Or maybe it's more of a hoax.

    Or maybe it's a message.

  • ||

    Given that even the governor doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like...

    And is the governor supposed to be some kind of expert on how to identify what an illegal alien looks like? Why would that be? She's probably never even seen one (or noticed if she did).

  • Stephen P. Wenger||

    Governor Brewer may not know what an illegal immigrant looks like but those of us who have lived on Arizona's border with Mexico have a pretty good idea and I guarantee you that so do most of Arizona's police officers.

    Border Patrol agents receive training to help them distinguish illegal entrants who are Mexican from "OTM's," other-than-Mexicans. The former, on first offenses, are eligible for voluntary returns instead of deportation; the latter must be returned to their home countries (at the expense of American taxpayers. Border Patrol agents are also trained to distinguish US citizens of Hispanic ancestry from foreigners, in order to man checkpoints, among their other duties. If the Obama administration is so concerned about the misidentification of Hispanic US citizens by Arizona's police officers, it has much material it can share to help train them. Do not those citizens potentially run the same risks when they traverse the Border Patrol checkpoints in border states?

  • ||

    Existing FEDERAL law:
    8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304(e)
    "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
    to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both."

    An alien is anyone who is not a citizen. Correctly used, the term includes legal immigrants. Aliens are required to carry identification papers, whereas citizens are not.

    This existing federal law intimates that because aliens need to carry documentation at all times that given any police encounters they are required to produce such documentation. US citizens stopped by police are often asked for a drivers license as proof of residency.

    Know your history. Even Cesar Chevez was against illegal aliens.

  • ||

    Even Cesar Chevez was against illegal aliens.

    Oh, yeah. That'll get you far around here.

  • Barack Obama™||

    I think it's a shame that Cesar Chavez, a great American or possibly Mexican hero, died before I could federalize his passing with a moving speech before my fellow brown people and the nation at large, amen.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +12

  • LibertyBill||

    You know it wouldve have come to this if the Feds actually did its job and follow the law. The faster we solve illegal immigration, the better. It will make alot of people irrelevant again.

  • ||

    More relevant than you think. It's about the beaner vote. The left can only win at the ballot box by ensuring large turn out of the black vote. Add the beaner vote and it's a shoo in.

  • TruthOffering||

    Just know this: immigration is only an issue because we've become a social welfare state where the have support the have-nots. If we abolished this nonsense, it wouldn't matter who came and went. Check out our latest article about it:

    http://www.truthoffering.com/p.....blame.html

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Oh yeah, that is a great site. Yes siree!

    Are you getting many transmissions from that colandar on your head?

  • ||

    What part of of these two words does the liberal left DO NOT understand? "Illegal aliens"

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22589

    and...........................
    Our border agents are being shot and assaulted as we speak:
    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/.....rcID=64910

  • ||

    "Illegal aliens"

    That's trumped by "HUMAN RIGHTS" - "RIGHTS TO LIFE and LIBERTY"

  • ||

    I don't see it being a problem to prove who you are to the authorities if the law requires it.

    I have to do a scan check everyday of the week at two doors and stand in front of camera before I can go into my office to work.

    It's annoying, but it's reality. Deal with it.

    As far as cops pulling over legal immigrants because they look latino, they should be happy (unless they are doing something criminal).

    I was pulled over for having two trek bikes in my brother's pickup truck because my bike rack was broken. We looked like poor shitheads that just knocked over someone's garage. They checked the VINs on the bike, proved it was our property, then went along. It's irksome, but it also means they're doing their job! What if I was someone who just stole those bikes?

    Think about this. If a 13 year old kid is driving an automobile, do you just let him keep driving because he might just "look young for his age?".

    Trend analysis, statistics research, reasonable suspicion and generalization works in reality. .. and of course the liberal fanatics are going to call you a racist, but hell, ya can't have everything.

    For the record, I oppose all welfare, not immigration.

  • ||

    What standards does the Border patrol and immigration use? Why can't Arizona adopt those same standards? 5 people are tresspassing on your property on a known smuggling route filling a milk jug of water at your hose. They are trespassing so you call the cops. Border Patrol responds and can make a determination but the local sherriff can't??? Why?

  • ||

    Border Patrol responds and can make a determination but the local sherriff can't???

    In the case you describe, the local sheriff has always had the ability to apprehend trespassers and refer them to ICE if he deemed it worthwhile.

    The particularly onerous characteristic of the new Arizona law is that it does not give the sheriff a choice in the matter. The sheriff is breaking the law if he suspects they are illegal immigrants but does not pursue the state legislation to its fullest extent.

    See, the legislature of Arizona doesn't feel compelled to leave the customary enforcement of immigration law to the federal government, but no way is it going to allow peons in the localities to decide on their own not to follow the new state enforcement of immigration law.

  • ||

    A canard. Technically speaking, the sheriff is "breaking the law" if he pulls you over for speeding, not signaling, white light in the back, and dirty plates and only writes you paper on the speeding. Nowhere in law is there given to the enforcers the ability to use discretion in what laws he will enforce.

  • ||

    Can the enforcer be sued by anyone who chooses to sue when he doesn't enforce those other laws?

  • ||

    Admittedly, I have not read the new law. But based upon the description provided in the article above, it seems the law requires that there first be a lawful stop/detention for some other purpose before there can be any further inquiry regarding the individual's immigration status. Even then, as in any such detention, there cannot be further inquiry unless probable cause exists to believe the individual is in the U.S. illegally.

    On Mr. Chapman's point regarding pulling a vehicle on a pretext (e.g. 1 mph over the speed limit) I certainly share his concern that such stops can and do occur with too great a frequency. However, to discard the Arizona law on that basis necessarily requires that we discard all traffic laws since they can easily be used as a pretext to investigate some other suspected crime.

    On his point regarding what might constitute probable cause, I can imagine that upon stopping someone for a traffic infraction, an illegal alien might be unable to produce a valid driver's license. If they don't have a reasonable explanation for why they don't have a license, that might reasonably lead to a request for some other identification. In short, probable cause could exist without any impermissible overstepping of constitutional protections and immunities.

  • ||

    Pretty much anyone could be a Canadian (and yes, there are Canadian illegals in this country.) So police are required under this law to ask for identity papers in all instances of lawful contact with anyone of any color.

  • ||

    I'm kinda disappointed that Reason magazine has bought into the rhetorics from the Al Sharpton crowd.

    The the hysteria over police abuse from the Latino groups are often just noisy scaremongering. Most illegals don't lose sleep at night fearing swat teams crashing into their windows screaming "Back to your country of origin, you illegal rats." I had a few minor incidents with the police while I was illegal, and they never bothered me beyond what they were obligated, although a few did ask me if I could speak English.

    If the police asked documentation from every jaywalker and drivers caught using the cell phone, and deported them all for failing to disclose their legal status, border states will go broke. But if you look suspiciously like a suspected gang member, the police should ask for their documentation. If he's illegal, deport him before he can shoot a black football star or an Asian dry cleaning owner.

    When the government persecutes a pot store owner who sold drugs legally under state law, sure, we should be outraged. Is it a menace for a police to ask for documentation from suspected illegals, under certain cicrumstances?

  • ||

    It's much ado about nothinbg Lee. It's all about the beaner vote.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +100

  • ||

    So the measure could mean that overaggressive cops will put legal Hispanic residents in chronic fear of arrest. Alternatively, police may not do their jobs much differently from before.

    Maybe the new law is a menace. Or maybe it's more of a hoax.

    If only we could rely upon average, level-headed police officers to pay little attention to SB1070. You're missing an important part of this law, Steve. Citizens can sue if they think law enforcement is not sufficiently enforcing this law. So this law takes discretion out of the hands of police officers and puts it in the hands of the most extreme elements of the anti-immigration movement.

    The law also provides that the plaintiff pays the costs if their suit fails; this should be only a small obstacle to one of the several think-tank recipients of wingnut welfare. What's worse, this could mean that out-of-state interests will dictate law enforcement priorities to Arizonans, using straw plaintiffs.

  • ||

    As far as cops pulling over legal immigrants because they look latino, they should be happy (unless they are doing something criminal).

    Jesus Christ, this is America, not Soviet Russia. One should be able to go about one's business without being constantly bothered by government agents, for no other reason than the color of one's skin.

    Maybe you should ask some black folks - if you know any - what 'driving while black' is all about.

    I don't mind an occasional encounter with cops, but if I couldn't go about my business on a daily basis without being constantly questioned by them, I'd be spitting mad about it. I might even join the teabaggers, but of course they don't get excited about things which don't affect white Republicans.

  • ||

    Crybaby liberal rhetoric. I don't oppose immigration, but I'm not going to listen to the sob stories of people who had to show a cop their I.D. It happened to me all the time when I was a punk rocker living in the city, and I was cool about it.

    Anybody that wants to come here and work and spend money, great. I just think we should abolish all welfare programs so that there is no system for people to exploit... which, I know the liberals hate to hear it, DOES happen. The progressive left want to make the people on socialized programs seem like one big sally struthers infomercial.

    In reality, you've got a world of con-artists, lazy assholes, and thieves that just use food stamps and welfare dollars so they can keep up their hustle without having a job.

  • ||

    is it "crybaby liberal rhetoric" when teabaggers whine about the Obama administration (not) taking away their 2nd Amendment rights? Or all the other alleged oppression they're suffering?

  • ||

    So you think people should not be upset when their hard earned money is stolen from them? When they are told what they can't drink, eat and smoke? How they're not allowed to defend themselves against criminals?

    The rise of taxes on the small businessman? The increasing unemployment rate, and sending labor jobs over seas? These things wouldn't worry you? I guess it must be nice being a freeloader. Don't worry, we'll all be joining you soon enough.

    The government knows best, hallelujah!

  • ||

    So Arizona should do nothing? This is a perfectly reasonable law that emulates existing federal law. If a U.S. citizen is harassed without cause by a police officer, he or she has legal recourse in the form of a complaint or lawsuit. You think the cops aren't going to feel enormous pressure to be extra sensitive in dealing with this law? News of the law has already begun to have the desired effect. Many illegals are leaving Arizona. Good! Now those states who refuse to deal with them will be forced to do so and then maybe the Feds will finally step in and do their job (post Obama of course).

  • ||

    If teabaggers were stopped several times a day and asked for their IDs and citizenship papers, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't put up with that crap, and telling them that they can sue wouldn't do much to assuage their feelings about it.

    In fact, I'm positive they'd be screaming about that damned socialist tyrant Obama oppressing their rights.

    As always, it's "screw you, I got mine" with you folks. If you people are indicative of libertarian thought, I don't see a dime's worth of difference between you and Republicans.

  • ||

    I did not click 'submit' twice, dammit.

  • ||

    If teabaggers were stopped several times a day and asked for their IDs and citizenship papers, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't put up with that crap, and telling them that they can sue wouldn't do much to assuage their feelings about it.

    In fact, I'm positive they'd be screaming about that damned socialist tyrant Obama oppressing their rights.

    As always, it's "screw you, I got mine" with you folks. If you people are indicative of libertarian thought, I don't see a dime's worth of difference between you and Republicans.

  • ||

    Then it's clear you don't know what libertarian thought is.

  • ||

    If you have ever lived in a border area it is pretty easy to spot the difference between an immigrant from Mexico and a native born Hispanic. Moreover, the circumstances and employment activities that illegal aliens are involved in are a further screen. It would behoove the police to be very very circumspect in inquiring about immigration status. The first time that a native born Hispanic is asked about his status then the sh*t will hit the fan.
    In reality this should be no different than when formerly crossing back into California from Baja how the Border Patrol would give everybody the once over look before letting you in.

    There is a lot of panic over nothing. The pro-illegal alien groups have been induldging in an orgy of sophistry with their arguments against this measure.

  • Michael||

    I'm not sure why some feel the concept of "lawful contact" would necessarily be misused when these same practices are used everyday in existing law enforcement situations. This law does not instruct police to randomly stop people, which many critics are charging. I agree this would be a problem.

    Instead this law is asking police to use existing lawful practices. The only difference is they are now required to investigate possible infractions of the law as it relates to immigration.

    Why do some feel the police cannot use the same tactics they use on a daily basis responsibly to apprehend bank robbers, for example?

    For opponents maybe the issue is not the way the law is written. Then let's at least be intellectually honest about the content and intent of this law.

  • Darryn||

    God I wish you people were as paranoid about the Obamacare scam, Cap/Tax, financial "reform" and the national debt. I guess corruption is only dangerous when it's the states doing it.

  • ||

    "Since most of the state's illegal immigrants are Latinos, the natural impulse of police may be to interrogate every Latino with whom they cross paths." = Proof that the writer is dumb as an egg plant.

    Let's see, cop "contacts" those who are "stopped" for a crime. I'm not going to question children, octogenarians, septuagenarians. I'm not going to question handicapped people, families walking along the street happily eating that ice cream O was talking about. teachers in classrooms ETC.

    Cop WILL question those w/ no license or ID, people in possession of drugs, people w/ stolen cars, people in process of B+E; people in possession of large amts of cash w/ no explanation; people w/ unregistered firearms or w/ no permit; people w/ obviously forged docs; people who once stopped then try to escape; people caught buying fake SS/ID's, people selling drugs.
    I don't know if opponents are genuinely worried that cops will question ALL latinos and are therefore just STUPID or if this is their idea of making political hay.
    The reason imo that opponents sound so fing stupid is that the law ISNT about stopping people who look like "illegal aliens." The law IS about stopping criminals and THEN looking further as circumstances may REASONABLY warrant w/o using race/ethnicity as the sole criterion and w/o infringing upon civil rights. Idiocy is a civil right, be grateful

  • ||

    The law IS about stopping criminals and THEN looking further...

    Fortunately, the legislature had enough foresight to invent some more "crimes"...

    A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
    1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
    2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
    ...
    A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
    B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
    C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
  • ||

    When did securing the nations borders become racist? When did the rule of law become to great a hurdle?

  • ||

    "HUMAN RIGHTS TO LIFE AND LIBERTY" That's the rule of law. There's no such thing as "illegal" immigration.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Name You are a complete fucking asshole.

  • ||

    Why don't you read Arizona S. B. 1070 before you write about it?

  • ||

    I applaud Arizona's new legislation, requiring police to help with immigration enforcement. This country is overpopulated, and ten million Americans are out of work.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +6

  • ||

    Jimmy 'Crack' Corn = nationalist scumbag

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    _Name_
    Hi troll. Hate this country, do ya?

    You must be one of those illegals that we are talking about. Go home, where ever that is.

  • Sulla||

    Enforcing borders is racist.

    I can't believe Arizona is asking about anyone's immigration status! We need comprehensive immigration reform where illegals are given amnesty....and then the state is STILL prohibited from checking legal status, because it won't be any less racist after Amnesty!

    Screw this population, we'll get NEW voters, eh?

  • ||

    you are a freaking idiot a cop was shot a few hours ago in arizona. keep up the bleeding heart crap and who knows maybe an illegal will harm you or someone you care about now your heart has something to bleed about

  • ||

    as of 4:30 pm 4/30/2010 an arizona pinal county sherrifs deputy was shot in the stomach by an illegal alien during a routine traffic stop as he approached the vehicle. so all from other states that dont like our law. piss off!!! kill-em all!!!

  • ||

    Okay, I think everybody's got their panties in a wad over this law.

    Here are a few questions for you. 1) How do INS officials do their job? Do you think the AZ police will do anything terribly different? If not, then what's the problem?

    2) Have you ever had "lawful contact" with a police officer and not been requested to produce identification? If you are driving and speed or forget to use your turn signal this happens. It also happens when I'm walking down the street and happen to fit the description of someone the cops are looking for. "Papers? Papers?" Yeah, we've lived with these standards in America for YEARS and its not NAZI Germany, duh? What's the difference?

    To those that oppose this law-- get a life. And my question to you. What do you propose we shall do about countless illegals flooding our country?

    JJN

  • Jim Krehbiel||

    Steve! Let's use some common sense instead of looking for every possible violation of a persons rights an officer might make. A small percentage of these personal rights violations happen is enforcing any laws: drunk driving might be an example, road blocks, being stopped if you weave for another reason, etc.

    But we don't complain about those, do we? Only about stopping illegal immigration which is a politically correct thing to do.

    I think you are better than that! Or perhaps you think illegal immigration is good for the country so you take it upon yourself to not enforce those laws.

  • ||

    The author is an idjit and his loaded question utterly asinine.

    According to what passes for logic in his prejudicially contorted mind if we can't provide an answer to the silly question "What does a criminal LOOK like" then we shouldn't enforce any crime law against any person.

    People are, of course, not criminals by virtue of how they look - they become criminals as a consequence of their actions and inactions.

  • ||

    Last winter I asked my mother's neighbor if they wanted some old logs they had piled in their back yard. They said we could come and get them anytime to burn in our fireplace. While we were loading them on our truck the next Saturday afternoon, A police officer stopped and asked for identification and called in the lisence number on our truck. I am white, my husband is Asian, I didn't mind at all for the officer to check us out. I feel like my mother is much safer with such officers patroling her neighborhood. I cannot understand why other people mind for the police to do their job and check people out. The people of Arizona have a right to be safe.

  • ||

    "I cannot understand why other people mind for the police to do their job"

    You can't understand because you are fucking retarded

  • ||

    Racism: the first cry of the scoundrel.

    It is amusing to read about the dangers of racial discrimination. A nasty business for sure but we should also consider the lives of the citizens of Arizona. A large number of the illegal migrants have criminal records in the U.S. Some are murderers. It should not be a surprise that among those who enter the country illegally there would be a higher percentage of convicted criminals. Criminals disregard laws in general, including immigration law.

    There is a chance a racist cop will pull over a driver for "driving while hispanic". These things are lamentable but they occur from time to time. There is a reasonable effort made to prevent and punish these actions.

    Those who oppose the Arizona law are really saying the physical lives of Arizonans are meaningless compared to a fairly remote chance of discrimination. About the worst injustice anticipated is that a legal Latino will be inconvenienced while he proves he really has a driver's license. Have you ever visited the state or spoken with the residents? They have a big problem to solve. People are afraid, in many cases, to leave their homes in the evening. They also bear the cost of the lawless in taxes. Several administrations have ignored their plight. Our federal leaders are contemptible.

    What is most surprising is the deliberate and lawful actions of the legal citizens. It could be otherwise.

  • Mike||

    If we can't racially profile, how can we enforce affirmative action? There is an easy solution to all this: require everyone who interacts with the Government in any transaction to prove their citizenship. Need a driver's license? Need to enroll your kids in school? Need medical treatment? Paper's please. If you're not contributing to the tax base which pays for all of these things, you should not be able to receive these services. This is common sense, not racism. Immigration without assimilation is cultural suicide. The people of Arizona are tired of feeling like strangers in their own state. Enough is enough.

  • ||

    The people of Arizona are tired of feeling like strangers in their own state.

    Since 60% of the US-born residents of Arizona -- and presumably a greater percentage of the voters -- were born outside Arizona, whose state is it really?

    No other border state as that much of a US-born immigrant problem. No other border state has such a psycho law.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    THANK U

  • sd||

    sd

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement