Arizona Immigration Law = National ID for Arizonans

[Lucille]

Arizona Immigration Law = National ID for Arizonans (http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/06/18/arizona-immigration-law-national-id-for-arizonans/)


SB1070 states


F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency. This section applies to ANY PERSON. This section includes ANY LICENSE. Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included: “That’s not what it says.” “That’s not what it means.” “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other protestations such as in this post include playing word games….


The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it? Nothing. The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds. This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data. REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile? Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government? Why would you need to? Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere. Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens? But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:


Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here. Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds. The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digital photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database. Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID. So what? REAL ID is not the only national id program. PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data. Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…


“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY. We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.

[John Taylor]

Arizona Immigration Law = National ID for Arizonans (http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/06/18/arizona-immigration-law-national-id-for-arizonans/)

maintaining information relating to the immigration status

Sorry Lucille, the law here in AZ only allows the transfer of information to determine the immigration status of individuals. Nothing less, nothing more.

[FrankRep]

Arizona's new Immigration Law doesn't use the Real/National ID.

[FBI_Exposer]

Frank and John, did you bother to read the article Lucille posted? It demonstrates proof positive that the new law turns the DL into a national id and evidences it back using simple logic and the word of the law itself.

As the article says, what does REAL ID have to do with it? REAL ID has nothing to do with it. Just because it's not REAL ID, doesn't mean its not national id.

Read the article before responding at least. The facts speak for themselves.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

maintaining information relating to the immigration status

Sorry Lucille, the law here in AZ only allows the transfer of information to determine the immigration status of individuals. Nothing less, nothing more.



Arizona's new Immigration Law doesn't use the Real/National ID.

Yayaya...

we have heard it all before....

have no fear big government won't turn into bigger government because that has never happened and we won't let it happen.

don't worry folks we just need bigger government to solve these government created problems.

we need to make sure were safe and a little more government to accomplish that is not a bad thing.

The American people have been hearing the same bigger government bullshit since 1776 and this is just more of it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Not to mention Arizona has created a new police power which has been articulated over and over again. The other side refuses to acknowledge the constitutional questions.

Thanks to Arizona the Supreme Court will be creating a new class of stop in a few years. In addition to Terry Stops there will be immigration stops which will compel individuals despite Constitutional guarantees.

[WaltM]

Arizona's new Immigration Law doesn't use the Real/National ID.

but it's a stepping stone (says the slippery slope conspiracy tin foil hatter)

some people don't seem to understand what DOUBLE EDGED SWORD means.

[FrankRep]

but it's a stepping stone (says the slippery slope conspiracy tin foil hatter)

some people don't seem to understand what DOUBLE EDGED SWORD means.

Do some research before making stupid comments:


Napolitano: Real ID a no-go in Arizona (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/18/20080618real-id0618.html)


Napolitano signs bill to keep Arizona out of Real ID (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/17/napolitano_signs_bill_to_keep_az_out_of_real_id/)


PHOENIX—Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a bill Tuesday making Arizona the latest state to refuse to implement new "Real ID" security standards mandated by the federal government for driver's licenses.

[WaltM]

Do some research before making stupid comments:


Napolitano: Real ID a no-go in Arizona (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/18/20080618real-id0618.html)


Napolitano signs bill to keep Arizona out of Real ID (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/17/napolitano_signs_bill_to_keep_az_out_of_real_id/)


PHOENIX—Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a bill Tuesday making Arizona the latest state to refuse to implement new "Real ID" security standards mandated by the federal government for driver's licenses.

who said I agreed with the tin foil hat statement?

or do you disagree AZ's law is a double edged sword?

[Danke]

Next time I visit AZ and don't provide any government ID, where will they send me? Back to MN?

[WaltM]

Next time I visit AZ and don't provide any government ID, where will they send me? Back to MN?

yeah, probably, but Janet Napolitano will always be in charge, so don't worry.

[Vessol]

Anything any government does to try to solve something never works.

[constituent]

Do some research before making stupid comments:

OMG, aren't you just one to talk?

Need I provide the link?

[MelissaWV]

Next time I visit AZ and don't provide any government ID, where will they send me? Back to MN?

Actually, if you "looked suspiciously like an illegal," and refused to cooperate with the police to incriminate or exonerate yourself as to the question of your citizenship, you'd be arrested and sent to jail (or otherwise "held") until it could be figured out.

[FrankRep]

Next time I visit AZ and don't provide any government ID, where will they send me? Back to MN?

Are you driving a car without a Drivers License and caught speeding or running a red light. Try it sometime in your local city. See what happens.

[Krugerrand]

Are you driving a car without a Drivers License and caught speeding or running a red light. Try it sometime in your local city. See what happens.

Some states do not require you to present your driver's license. While you must BE licensed to drive, that does not always mean that the license must be physically carried always to be produced immediately.

Quite frankly, it shouldn't be necessary. When you identify who you are to a policeman, they can pull up all your information on their computer anyway. To quote the wisdoms of Elwood, "They've got SCMODS."

[FBI_Exposer]

Frank, can you READ?

What does REAL ID have to do with it? Real ID is just ONE national id program. There are dozens. So, Arizona exempted itself from one and turns around and voluntarily hands over the same data anyway.

[FBI_Exposer]

Are you driving a car without a Drivers License and caught speeding or running a red light. Try it sometime in your local city. See what happens.

What does THIS have to do with anything or the article Lucille posted?

What does running a red light have to do with the MVD turning over their entire database to the Department of Homeland Security?

Again, I must ask? Can you READ? Or do you just respond with red herrings without even having read the subject of the thread?

[FrankRep]

What does THIS have to do with anything or the article Lucille posted?

What does running a red light have to do with the MVD turning over their entire database to the Department of Homeland Security?

Again, I must ask? Can you READ? Or do you just respond with red herrings without even having read the subject of the thread?

I was responding to Danke.


Next time I visit AZ and don't provide any government ID, where will they send me? Back to MN?


The Liberal Democrats want to National ID. Get the Facts straight and lay off Arizona.


========





Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) unveiled their own proposal for reforming federal immigration policies and procedures by Joe Wolverton II


Democrats' Answer to Illegal Immigration is National ID (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3452-reid-schumer-and-menendez-answer-to-illegal-immigration-is-national-id-card)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 30 April 2010


In the days that have followed the enactment by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf), repercussions have sounded throughout the nation and the world. Legislators (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/24/eveningnews/main6429215.shtml) and larks (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicanisima/2010/04/shakira-is-the-latest-to-protest-arizonas-immigration-law.html) have decried the decision by the people of the Grand Canyon State and their elected representatives to proactively enforce existing federal immigration laws, thus beginning the burdensome process of retarding the unlawful invasion of the United States from across the porous southern border. Lawsuits and lamentations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042900744.html) dog the new law set to go into effect by the first of August.

Giving new meaning to the saying “a day late and a dollar short,” on April 29, Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) unveiled their own proposal for reforming federal immigration policies and procedures (http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/30715212/download?commit=Download+Now&secret_password=). The 26-page document is less a proposed bill than a very broad outline for changes the senators and members of their party will push for in Congress.

Of course, if President Obama has any say on the matter, any effort to overhaul current immigration policies will have to wait until after the November elections (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics). “I’ve been working Congress pretty hard. So I know, there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue,” the President told reporters aboard Air Force One. This is the surest signal to House and Senate Democrats that the immigration issue should be put on the legislative back burner pending the outcome of the mid-term elections.

The Reid-Schumer-Menendez memo, entitled the “Conceptual Proposal for Immigration Reform,” sets out eight “benchmarks” that they assert must be addressed before any significant alterations to the status of those currently illegally present in the United States can be made.

The first of these eight points calls for an increase in the number of border patrol agents. This mandate is at odds with the assessment pronounced by Homeland Security boss, Janet Napolitano (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/28/20100428arizona-immigration-law-impact.html) (herself a former governor of Arizona) that, “the borders are as secure as ever,” due in part to “the highest level of staffing in the Border Patrol's 85-year history.” It is indubitably this sort of internecine contradiction that forced Arizona’s hand in the first place.

The second point in the Democratic plan calls for an increase in the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents combating smuggling operations along the border with Mexico. Again, why are Reid and his crew only just now offering these tactics when hundreds of thousands of illegals are smuggled every year into Arizona across the desert border with Mexico? On April 15 of this year, for example, a combined force of federal agents and local police broke up an elaborate human smuggling organization that over the last decade has transported over 80,000 illegals into Arizona, using Phoenix as their primary hub. Is it any wonder that Arizona (and perhaps soon its fellow border states) felt compelled to defend itself against the tidal waves of illegals that crash into their shores day after day?

The third proposal announced by the Senate Democrats calls for the bolstering of the resources afforded ICE to prevent the hiring of illegals by American companies. While targeting commercial outfits that are unlawfully hiring those without the right to work in America is necessary to drying up the oasis from which so many of these desert invaders are drinking, the fact is that according to statistics published in a recent UCLA study (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/csup/uploaded_files/Natl_DayLabor-On_the_Corner1.pdf), 49 percent of illegals working in the United States are employed by individual homeowners, not corporations. If verifiable, this data would indicate that the effort to eradicate the illegal immigrant workforce, pressure must be applied on the individual alien, not just on businesses.

The fourth of the eight proposals is perhaps the most pernicious. The proposition has a high propensity for overreaching in direct proportion to its vagueness. The exact wording of the suggestion calls for “improved technology” that will assist ICE in determining eligibility for work in the U.S. While that sounds innocuous enough, later in the document, under the section entitled, “Ending Illegal Employment Through Biometric Employment Verification,” Reid, et al, set forth their chilling scheme to require all Americans to carry a 21st Century version of the Social Security Card. The national identification card will be embedded with biometric data detectable by federal agents. Specifically, the Reid plan will mandate that within 18 months of the passage of immigration reform legislation, every American worker carry the “fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer.”

As if that isn’t enough to freeze the blood of any ally of freedom and our constitutional republic, the Senate sponsors insist that the new identification card will contain the following information, as well: “(1) biometric identifiers, in the form of templates, that definitively tie the individual user to the identity credential; (2) electronic authentication capability; (3) ability to verify the individual locally without requiring every employer to access a biometric database; (4) offline verification capability (eliminating the need for 24-hour, 7-days-per-week online databases); (5) security features that protect the information stored on the card; (6) privacy protections that allow the user to control who is able to access the data on the card; (7) compliance with authentication and biometric standards recognized by domestic and international standards organizations.” Read it and weep, lovers of liberty!

The fifth, sixth, and seventh of the ideas published by the Senators on Thursday seem to restate the previous four but in more diffuse language. The bottom line is the increase in money and manpower for ICE and the Border Patrol. The goal is the turning off of the tap that daily pours drugs, humans, and crime across the border with Mexico. Each of these three points is so broad and so ill-defined (purposely) that when the fine points are drawn there is sure to be plenty of the tint of totalitarianism that is the hallmark of the present Potomac plutocracy.

The final proposal calls for the expediting of deportation proceedings in the federal immigration courts. Currently, the dockets are bulging; judges are overwhelmed; and forum shopping is pervasive, with immigrants filing petitions in states rumored to be more likely to approve them. Recent reports (http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/crisis-in-us-immigration-courts--a-report) indicate that a perfect storm of federal ineptitude and in fighting between the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department menaces the entire system and prevents justice from truly being served.

The debate over Arizona’s new law and the implications thereof will continue, Congressional “appetites” notwithstanding. While every law must be circumspectly scrutinized for any defects and violations of the principles of personal liberty and good government, the new law in Arizona seems to be working (http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Illegal-immigrants-leaving-Arizona-over-new-law), even though not yet in effect. While the latest congressional recommendations contain a few good ideas that are too little, too late, and a few (national i.d. card, for one) that are tyrannical and terrifying and must be vigorously opposed.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3452-reid-schumer-and-menendez-answer-to-illegal-immigration-is-national-id-card

[Danke]

Actually, if you "looked suspiciously like an illegal," and refused to cooperate with the police to incriminate or exonerate yourself as to the question of your citizenship, you'd be arrested and sent to jail (or otherwise "held") until it could be figured out.

That would make me a rich man.

[Danke]

I was responding to Danke.



Supposedly. I never brought up driving.

[MelissaWV]

That would make me a rich man.

Perfectly legal. They were holding you until your status could be determined, which is allowed. Your lawsuit would have no foundation.

[Danke]

Perfectly legal. They were holding you until your status could be determined, which is allowed. Your lawsuit would have no foundation.

Wrong.

[MelissaWV]

Wrong.

Go try it, then :) You can buy me dinner with your lawsuit winnings.

[Dr.3D]

Perfectly legal. They were holding you until your status could be determined, which is allowed. Your lawsuit would have no foundation.

That is my understanding as well. From what I understand, they may legally hold a person for 24 hours while they make a determination.

[John Taylor]

Next time I visit AZ and don't provide any government ID, where will they send me? Back to MN?

No, you can either identify yourself, as is required by law, constitutional law under the 10th Amendment, or you can go down to tent city! ;)

[John Taylor]

Not to mention Arizona has created a new police power which has been articulated over and over again. The other side refuses to acknowledge the constitutional questions.

Thanks to Arizona the Supreme Court will be creating a new class of stop in a few years. In addition to Terry Stops there will be immigration stops which will compel individuals despite Constitutional guarantees.

AZ hasn't created any new police powers. Arizona already had the entire police power not prohibited to the state of AZ by the AZ Constitution.

[Kregisen]

Are you driving a car without a Drivers License and caught speeding or running a red light. Try it sometime in your local city. See what happens.

As an Arizona citizen this law has been very interesting. I went from against it to for it to against it to neutral.

The bill itself doesn't give the definition for "lawful contact". Is there some exact definition for it or can it be taken different ways by different courts?

I've heard just getting stopped when you're walking down the street is a "contact" so I'm not so sure.

Obviously if you're driving you have a license but if you're walking you don't necessarily have ID on you.

I'm still not sure whether or not to support this law....like some have said it seems to be a double-edged sword.

[FrankRep]

As an Arizona citizen this law has been very interesting. I went from against it to for it to against it to neutral.

The bill itself doesn't give the definition for "lawful contact". Is there some exact definition for it or can it be taken different ways by different courts?

I've heard just getting stopped when you're walking down the street is a "contact" so I'm not so sure.

Obviously if you're driving you have a license but if you're walking you don't necessarily have ID on you.

I'm still not sure whether or not to support this law....like some have said it seems to be a double-edged sword.


The law was changed. Gotta keep up with the times. :)


Arizona immigration law: Changes sought by lawmakers (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html#)


AZ Central
Apr. 29, 2010


The Arizona House approved several new changes to Arizona's new immigration law. The changes still need final approval from the Senate before being passed along to the governor. If Gov. Jan Brewer supports them, they would go into effect at the same time the new law would.

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.
...


SOURCE:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html#

[constituent]

The law was changed. Gotta keep up with the times. :)


Arizona immigration law: Changes sought by lawmakers (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html#)


AZ Central
Apr. 29, 2010


The Arizona House approved several new changes to Arizona's new immigration law. The changes still need final approval from the Senate before being passed along to the governor. If Gov. Jan Brewer supports them, they would go into effect at the same time the new law would.

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.
...


SOURCE:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html#

You say the law was changed and then post an article stating that changes have been suggested and passed only by the house.

What gives?

[MelissaWV]

As an Arizona citizen this law has been very interesting. I went from against it to for it to against it to neutral.

The bill itself doesn't give the definition for "lawful contact". Is there some exact definition for it or can it be taken different ways by different courts?

I've heard just getting stopped when you're walking down the street is a "contact" so I'm not so sure.

Obviously if you're driving you have a license but if you're walking you don't necessarily have ID on you.

I'm still not sure whether or not to support this law....like some have said it seems to be a double-edged sword.

Lawful contact is fairly clear in the context of the law. There has to be a valid reason to stop you. There has to be some suspicion that you either match the description of someone the police are looking for (or your car does, or your bike, etc.) or that you're breaking the law. Pulling you over for speeding is lawful contact. Stopping you while you're out for a walk, unless you meet the aforementioned description, is generally not going to be lawful contact.

The tricky part is that the AZ law leaves the door open for someone to consider that they suspect you of being in the US illegally. This is a removable offense (mentioned in the AZ law), and it is also a crime anyhow. If you're suspected of such, then the officer can interrogate you as to that matter when they stop you. If you choose not to prove to the officer that you're a citizen, they can go ahead and detain you. Even upon suspicion of being here illegally, they can actually arrest you without a warrant.

The interesting part, which is seldom brought up, is that during an arrest an officer can pat you down or otherwise ensure that they are secure before they continue. They can even go through your bag if it is within arm's reach and they can justify they needed to search it for weapons. In general, items turned up during such searches are admissable as evidence. If you are wandering down the street, "looking like" an illegal, and the officer stops you as part of the warrantless arrest process, and they search you and find some pot, guess what? You're screwed, even if your ID is 100% pure citizen.

All of that, though, is theory. It'll play out over time. The law cannot be overturned as a whole, but provisions of it can be stripped away if there are problems in the future. A door open and poorly-written provisions do not mean they'll be abused. Maybe the police in Arizona will use their heads and be so afraid of being "potentially racist" that they'll enforce this law very carefully. Of course, that's bending the other way. If you're so scared that every brown person you arrest will cry "racism," maybe you will hesitate to arrest brown people. What a mess, eh?

I don't particularly like the law. It exists. It sucks. It's Arizona's problem. I like the reaction to the new law even less than I like the law itself. Now Mexico is going to "sue" Arizona, too, together with the Federal Government. The Feds have also made a grab for the water in the Southwest, citing a response to a drug cartel's attempt to blow up a dam. There's the incident with Arizona land being closed to, well, Arizonans. Lots of Federal grabbing going on in the SW. That's way worse than any potential harassment by police.

[MelissaWV]

...

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.
...


Right, but the law itself outlines arrests on the basis of suspicion of removable offenses. This makes stopping someone you suspect of being here illegally, and arresting them, a lawful arrest.

[FrankRep]

You say the law was changed and then post an article stating that changes have been suggested and passed only by the house.

What gives?

On April 23, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer Signed Senate Bill 1070 into law.

April 29, 2010, HB 2162 updated "lawful contact" to be "lawful stop, detention or arrest" (It passed)


The New Law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm

[Arion45]

maintaining information relating to the immigration status

Sorry Lucille, the law here in AZ only allows the transfer of information to determine the immigration status of individuals. Nothing less, nothing more.

When was the last time a law was passed and it was only used for what it was intended? Nothing less, nothing more?

[constituent]

On April 23, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer Signed Senate Bill 1070 into law.

April 29, 2010, HB 2162 updated "lawful contact" to be "lawful stop, detention or arrest" (It passed)


The New Law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm

You conveniently keep missing this part...


The changes still need final approval from the Senate before being passed along to the governor. If Gov. Jan Brewer supports them, they would go into effect at the same time the new law would.

[John Taylor]

When was the last time a law was passed and it was only used for what it was intended? Nothing less, nothing more?

What're they going to do, check to see that U.S. citizens are citizens... ok...

[constituent]

Right, but the law itself outlines arrests on the basis of suspicion of removable offenses. This makes stopping someone you suspect of being here illegally, and arresting them, a lawful arrest.

Which is why his first statement wasn't really a valid refutation of the post he quoted... but whatever. :)

[John Taylor]

You conveniently keep missing this part...

Brewer will back the alterations. She has solidified a huge primary lead, and won't mind tacking just a touch.

[Arion45]

The law was changed. Gotta keep up with the times. :)


Arizona immigration law: Changes sought by lawmakers (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html#)


AZ Central
Apr. 29, 2010


The Arizona House approved several new changes to Arizona's new immigration law. The changes still need final approval from the Senate before being passed along to the governor. If Gov. Jan Brewer supports them, they would go into effect at the same time the new law would.

The phrase "lawful contact" would be changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that an officer would not need to question a crime victim or witness about their legal status.
...


SOURCE:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/29/20100429arizona-immigration-law-changes29-ON.html#

Look into what a Terry Stop is.

[John Taylor]

Look into what a Terry Stop is.

It's simple, reasonable suspicion allows police officers to search people for weapons when they stop people.

[constituent]

Brewer will back the alterations. She has solidified a huge primary lead, and won't mind tacking just a touch.

what might be does not equal what is.

[John Taylor]

what might be does not equal what is.

That's certainly true, and it is quite possible she won't sign any alterations... however, she is defending the law against all the hippie lawsuits, and these concessions will give the defense team an additional argument in court, that the issue is now moot because of the material alterations...

All in all, based on the information at my disposal as an Arizonan, and as a Republican precinct committeeman, I think she'll sign it.

[Arion45]

What're they going to do, check to see that U.S. citizens are citizens... ok...

You didn't answer my question.

So what you are saying is that the government now has the right to check citizenship with a lawful stop?

A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

Reasonable suspicion is pretty subjective. I could make up a whole host of things why I would want to stop someone on the street. In essence, this government just made it legal to stop someone on the street and ask for Z papers.

[Arion45]

It's simple, reasonable suspicion allows police officers to search people for weapons when they stop people.

Then check for citizenship under this new law.

[MelissaWV]

It's simple, reasonable suspicion allows police officers to search people for weapons when they stop people.

Yep. I touched on that in my post. I'm curious to see if random stops based on the "suspicion" I've talked about will be used to justify searching people when there was no other cause. There's no way to really refute that an officer suspected someone was illegal. Imagine if the police stop a group of extremely dark-skinned young men on the street, suspect them of being illegal, and execute a warrantless arrest. As part of that process, they can search for weapons. Whatever turns up during that lawful stop is now grounds for additional action. If someone were to say "oh c'mon! Do they LOOK like illegals?" then that someone would seem awfully racist.

It's all hyperbole and conjecture, though, until the law's applied in many cases and different provisions are cited.

[John Taylor]

You didn't answer my question.

So what you are saying is that the government now has the right to check citizenship with a lawful stop?

A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

Reasonable suspicion is pretty subjective. I could make up a whole host of things why I would want to stop someone on the street. In essence, this government just made it legal to stop someone on the street and ask for Z papers.

The right? Rights are only held by individuals.The state have the constitutionally delegated power to check for citizenship, yes.

Yeah, thanks for rehashing my distilation of a Terry Stop. It allows searches for weapons to enable and secure police officer safety. That is the purpose of it.

AZ did not just make it legal to ask for "Z papers"... it made it legal for police officers to ask people they have already stopped if they are in the country legally... that's it.

[John Taylor]

Then check for citizenship under this new law.

That's not a Terry Stop... Terry Stops are limited to checking for securing the location for the safety of the police officer.

[John Taylor]

Yep. I touched on that in my post. I'm curious to see if random stops based on the "suspicion" I've talked about will be used to justify searching people when there was no other cause. There's no way to really refute that an officer suspected someone was illegal. Imagine if the police stop a group of extremely dark-skinned young men on the street, suspect them of being illegal, and execute a warrantless arrest. As part of that process, they can search for weapons. Whatever turns up during that lawful stop is now grounds for additional action. If someone were to say "oh c'mon! Do they LOOK like illegals?" then that someone would seem awfully racist.

It's all hyperbole and conjecture, though, until the law's applied in many cases and different provisions are cited.

Sure, people can look like illegals. Illegals often dress differently from citizens, and noticing what someone is wearing is not racist... it is reasonable.

This law doesn't allow people to be "warrantlessly arrested" unless they are breaking the law, including, being an illegal immigrant. If the people questioned are legal, they will not be arrested. The U.S. Constitution already allows people who are reasonably suspected of breaking the law to be searched for weapons. I fail to see how our AZ law makes any alterations to the existing state of affairs.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

A pig asking a person a question in line at a Dunkin Donuts is lawful contact.

A pig not liking the answer or attitude of a person is reasonable suspicion.

I do not like living in a reality where animals enjoy greater natural rights than human beings.

[MelissaWV]

Sure, people can look like illegals. Illegals often dress differently from citizens, and noticing what someone is wearing is not racist... it is reasonable.

This law doesn't allow people to be "warrantlessly arrested" unless they are breaking the law, including, being an illegal immigrant. If the people questioned are legal, they will not be arrested. The U.S. Constitution already allows people who are reasonably suspected of breaking the law to be searched for weapons. I fail to see how our AZ law makes any alterations to the existing state of affairs.

No, they can be arrested without warrant if they are suspected of being illegal (probable cause). I should note that the text of the law Frank linked to has more changes than I'd previously seen, and changed "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause."


A. A peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe:

...

5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

It doesn't really say what constitutes probable cause of believing someone's here illegally. I'm sure it won't be race, culture, or whatever -specific. The law says that can't be used. It might be, as you pointed out, a type of clothing or perhaps where the person is hanging out. Those kinds of profiles exist all over the place already. What I said in my example is that since "probable cause" to suspect someone is an illegal is not defined, it can be used to justify stops and searches of people of all kinds. What I went on to say in my example is that those saying the police are abusing their power will be directed to the letter of the law, at which point the police officer needs only state s/he had probable cause to believe the person they searched was here illegally.

[Arion45]

Sure, people can look like illegals. Illegals often dress differently from citizens, and noticing what someone is wearing is not racist... it is reasonable.

This law doesn't allow people to be "warrantlessly arrested" unless they are breaking the law, including, being an illegal immigrant. If the people questioned are legal, they will not be arrested. The U.S. Constitution already allows people who are reasonably suspected of breaking the law to be searched for weapons. I fail to see how our AZ law makes any alterations to the existing state of affairs.

You are stark prove of what 12 years of indoctrination camps can do to someones mind.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, they can be arrested without warrant if they are suspected of being illegal (probable cause). I should note that the text of the law Frank linked to has more changes than I'd previously seen, and changed "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause."



It doesn't really say what constitutes probable cause of believing someone's here illegally. I'm sure it won't be race, culture, or whatever -specific. The law says that can't be used. It might be, as you pointed out, a type of clothing or perhaps where the person is hanging out. Those kinds of profiles exist all over the place already. What I said in my example is that since "probable cause" to suspect someone is an illegal is not defined, it can be used to justify stops and searches of people of all kinds. What I went on to say in my example is that those saying the police are abusing their power will be directed to the letter of the law, at which point the police officer needs only state s/he had probable cause to believe the person they searched was here illegally.

I observed a person looking at maps for several minutes but then became suspicious when he did not purchase one.

He looked suspicious your honor. He was acting lost and staring at signs as if he could not read them.

I was suspicious because his clothes looked dirty from a distance and he was walking in a neighborhood of $100,000 homes.

I was standing in line and the person in front of me was on the phone. At first I could hear who they were talking to because they had the volume turned up. I became suspicious after I heard "press one for english, two for...." and couldn't understand a damn thing after that.

I noticed a few men standing on a corner up the road. I became suspicious when they scattered as I approached.

[Zippyjuan]

See, we got this here problem with immigrants. They steal our jobs and such. So lets send in the military and put cops out on all the corners to make sure everybody has the proper papers to be here. But don't give us any national ID crud which could help identify local from "those others". We don't need or want that. And don't pass any laws which may lead to the hasseling of US citizens. Just them crummy feriners. That would be governent intruding on our freedoms. And don't put any restrictions on businesses. That would be bad for them. But let's make sure that they become immigration experts and weed out any illegals with fake documents they may hire. Maybe the occasional raid on their premises just to double check everybody's id's. Can't be too careful these days.

What do you get when you build a 50 foot high fence? Somebody with a 51 foot ladder (or a shovel to dig under it).

[Arion45]

Lets do it for Amearaka!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zippyjuan]

This is from an article that was linked to in another thread: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/03/mexicans-hold-noses-shop-arizona-despite-anger-immigration-law/

"You live under a lot of pressure in Arizona. You have a hard time finding a place to rent, being able to drive," said Benitez, a father of three teenagers. "But what you make in the U.S. in one day, you make it in Mexico in one week."

"Life there is awful, but I don't go to the U.S. because I like living there," he added. "I go because I like dollars."


Why do they come? This.

[FBI_Exposer]

You're still ignoring the part that ALL RESTRICTIONS are removed from the exchange of data of ALL PERSONS for ALL LICENSES will ANY AGENCY of the federal government.

That part has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop and everything to do with handing over law abiding citizens data over to homeland security to build a national id database.

[Danke]

Go try it, then :) You can buy me dinner with your lawsuit winnings.

I know many who have. Next.

[MelissaWV]

I know many who have. Next.

Many who've tried this under the new Arizona law? How?