Arizona Immigration Bill - What is objectionable

I am not suggesting that anyone will be tried or convicted on the street. The problem comes with the failure to specify what happens in the course of the "reasonable attempt". For instance, does "reasonable attempt" include detaining them while attempting to establish identity? Detaining them until proof is given? Does it include arresting them until proof is established? The law isn't clear.

As it stands now, there isn't any state where you can be arrested for failure to produce ID, much less proof of citizenship. Yet with this law there is the real possibility that failure to produce proof of citizenship can lead to arrest. Since the law is unclear on how much burden of proof lies with the LEO, this places in danger our civil liberties. It potentially goes far beyond any current state law in the attempt to establish who someone is. That is its danger. Its not simply an extension of current law - its potentially unprecedented in both scope and practice.

Sure, if you are an illegal, just have the necessary documents. But what about legal citizens? What if a legal citizen falls under reasonable suspicion and has not proof of citizenship or wishes not to show it? What happens to them?

 

Ok lets ignore the concept of illegal immigration being a danger to our liberty for now. The point that needs to be clear is that placing the burden of proof on the legal citizen is a violation of liberty. You are effectively arguing that we must give up our liberty in order to preserve it.

The inconvenience/convenience is really beside the point. Its the damage to our civil liberty which is the issue...regardless of how convenient the violation may be. It damages the concept of innocent till proven guilty and is potentially a huge release of liberty to the government - in concept if not convenience.

When I say "undue burden" I am not equating burden with convenience. By "undue burden" i mean undue burden upon our civil liberties. Thats the issue at stake - not convenience.

 

If there is reasonable suspicion then there will follow a reasonable attempt to seek identify. If that fails then, yes, a person could be arrested and turned over to ICE for further processing. It's no different than being arrested for suspicion of a crime because you look like someone who did it or you're driving a vehicle that fits the description. You will be stopped, asked to identify yourself, and based on your response you may be detained or arrested or released depending upon the officer's judgment. But, in the end, you will not be charged, held without bond, tried, convicted, or punished without due process. The latter is the protection we enjoy. We are not, however, free from being stopped, questioned, mistakenly detained, and possibly mistakenly arrested. There's no prohibition against it! We can't be held indefinitely but we may be detained for any number of reasons. We can't be falsely arrested but we can be mistakenly arrested. It does happen but it's not the norm. It will not be the norm with this law. It isn't that difficult to sort things out. A lot will depend on the person's response to being stopped. If they act like a jerk and start screaming about rights they'll probably not enjoy the ride down town. But, if they're okay, it should only take a few minutes to put aside the reasonable suspicion and be on their way. Let's not make this into a big deal about the loss of liberty when it's not. Arizona isn't going to be doing anything that ICE doesn't already do. It's been done for years without a major problem. It's not going to be a major problem now. The loss of liberty is what we're trying to avoid. If we don't end this curse of illegal immigration we will lose control of it and ultimately we will have extreme problems. That could lead all the way up to civil unrest or civil war and then a lot of liberties would be suppressed at the end of a military rifle - not a civilian law enforcement officer's simple questions.

 

Where do people get such stupid junk. Is it a violation of liberty when a police officer asks a legal citizen who is operating a car for his ID? You know when you say silly things like this you aren't going to be taken seriously. Good grief

 

Police asking for a driver's license is not comparable to requiring proof of ID. So no, its not a violation of liberty for a LEO to ask for a driver's license while operating a car. Operating a vehicle on public roads is not a right, but a privilege. Its a privilege which is regulated. When one takes advantage of that privilege they tacitly accept the laws and restrictions associated with it. One of those laws is that they driver must have proof of licence on them while driving.

But outside of this context they are free to go without ID. They are free to never have a licence at all for the whole life - simply don't drive. In fact, in no state can a person be arrested for failure to produce an ID regardless of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. So, in the case of driving, the burden is not being placed on the driver, the driver is willingly accepting certain burdens in order to exercise a privilege.

The rights of citizenship, however, are not like the privilege of driving a car. Rights are inherent and inalienable. Privileges are exercised or not exercised by choice and are limited and defined. So, its one thing to exercise a privilege and tacitly accept the restrictions which go with it. Its another thing to have to be required to prove you are a legal citizen. In that case the burden of proof is being placed on the citizen and thus violating their right.

 

And it continues. It is very comparable. In fact there is very little difference. And by the way there has been a fed law on the books that requires legal immigrants to provide ID for years. The Ariz law mirrors the Fed law. All this hub bub is nothing more than an attempt to create PR war to beat back this law to continue to allow unfettered access by illegals criminal aliens.

 

First of all, probable cause is the standard needed to make an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is a step below probable cause. The standards of this law is that of reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Thus, this law should not provide a basis for arrest.

Secondly, your distinction between a false arrest and a mistaken arrest is false. A mistaken arrest IS a false arrest. A mistaken arrest opens an LEO up to a lawsuit because of infringed right just like any other false arrest would. IOW, we are just as protected from a mistaken arrest as we are from a false arrest...the former being a subset of the latter. Contrary to what you say, there IS a prohibition against a mistaken arrest.

Furthermore, there are numerous laws and rules which are intended to help make sure that mistaken/false arrests are not made. Again, the burden of proof is fully placed on the LEO and not at all on the citizen. If the LEO fails to fulfill this burden of proof, he is open to lawsuits. At no point does the burden of establishing identity lie with the citizen.

So, if this changes with the AZ, it will be unprecedented and very much a loss of liberty. This is a real possibility with the law as its written.

For me the argument that "the federal government already gets away with it" is not very convincing - if anything, just the opposite.

 

I explained how its different. Further the discussion by explaining how my reasoning is unsound. Or at least provide more than bald assertions.

Not the issue. I have no problem with that. Its the possibility that the law might end up requiring that citizens carry proof of citizenship at all times that bothers me.

Thats cool. Now do me the favor of dealing with my actual arguments.

 

Your whole argument falls apart from the start. The idea that being asked for ID is and infringement on liberty is absurd. What ever other argument you carry beyond that is irrelevant.

 

Yet I never said that being asked for ID is an infringement of liberty. So, since your counter-argument is based on a claim that I never made it fails.

Now, please show how my argument (not the strawman you create) is unsound.

 

You said:

So much for a strawman

 

And the false accusation of a strawman goes down again.

 

You said that I said:

What I actually said:

and

Are they equivalent ideas? No.

My concern is over burden of proof. In our system of law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Thus the burden of proof of law-breaking lies with the LEOs.

So, can LEOs ask for ID w/o infringing liberty? Absolutely. Can LEOs even require that a person identify themselves when asked w/o unduly infringing liberty? According to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, most certainly.

So, contrary to your claim, asking for ID is not the issue. I agree with you that its not an infringement of liberty. The issue is about *proving* who you say you are. Who's responsibility is that? As current law stands, the burden for this sort of proof lies fully with the LEO. In no state is failure to give *proof* of your identity (as in a driver's license) grounds for arrest. The worst that can happen is that the officer might be able to detain you while attempting to establish proof that you lied about your identity.

That takes care of my first quote. The second follows from the first. The issue isn't with carrying proof of citizenship but with the reasons for having to do so. If the law shifts the burden of proof to the citizen thus resulting in citizens having to have proof on them at all times, then liberty is being infringed. The expectation of a normal citizen in everyday affairs is that no LEO should be able to arrest simply because the citizen failed to prove they were legal. That is a violation of the the concept of innocent till proven guilty.


So, as I have shown in length, your claims were not at all the same as what I actually said. In fact, I fully agree with your strawman - it clearly isn't an infringement on liberty to be asked for ID. My argument is based on something very different.

So, please, try to deal with my actual argument instead of some strawman. If you don't understand my argument, please feel to ask for clarification. That should be more productive that insisting that I am arguing something which I am not.

 

How do you provide proof? Show ID.

When you are pulled over by LE and asked for ID it is to show or Prove you are legally eligible to drive. It is no different.

When I go to the bank I have to show ID. It is not assumed I am the account holder.

The fact is the burden of proof as to our identity is on us in a great many things in this country and in fact in the world. The idea that somehow having to provide ID (burden of proof) is an infringement on our liberty is absurd and a strawman itself. It is not the real issue and you know it.

 

Yes, that would be a very reasonable way to help the LEO quickly establish proof. However, its one thing to be willingly helpful to the LEO but a very different thing to be required by law to provide proof. In the former case the burden of proof still lies with the LEO - you are just trying to be helpful and expedite that process. In the latter case though, the burden of proof would lie with you. This would be infringement of liberty.

Proving your legally eligible to drive is very different from having to prove you are legally eligible to reside within the US. Why? Because driving is a privilege, not a right, but living within the borders of the US is a right, not a privilege. So the requirements for these very different things - driving vs. living in the US, a privilege vs. a right - are also going to be judged by different standards. In order to legally drive you have to first meet certain requirements and standards then agree to abide by certain certain restrictions while driving (but which don't apply when you aren't in a vehicle). In order to legally be a citizen its sufficient that you were born in the US.

So while the I agree that the process of providing a licence and proof of citizenship is essentially the same (you hand the LEO a valid ID/license), the legal ramifications are very different. This fact is demonstrated by state law. Every state requires a license while driving, but in NO state is failure to prove your identity an arrestable offense. Likewise, proving citizenship should follow the same precedence and legal reasoning as proving identity - its not the citizens burden to do so, nor should they be arrested simply for failing to do so.

But if you fail to show your ID you aren't arrested either. You simply can't access your account...and account you agreed would only be accessed by someone showing ID when you opened it. Again, the process may be essentially the same as proving citizenship, but the legal ramifications (there are none when it comes to showing ID at a bank) of each is very different. Its the legal ramifications that I am concerned about, not the process of handing over an ID.

Agreed. However, in none of them does failure to prove identity result in arrest unless you willingly agreed to that stipulation beforehand. The issue is having to prove your identity. I have no problem with that per se. The issue is with having to prove your identity when questions of guilt or innocence are at stake absent probable cause.

It is an infringement of liberty when failure to do so is considered an reason for arrest. Sure, we bear the burden of proof quite often without liberty being infringed. Its when the burden of proof is associated with matters of guilt/innocence, and without tacit or explicit agreement to the contrary, that burden of proof becomes an infringement on liberty. This flows from the concept of innocent till proven guilty.

 

Reasonable suspicion can lead probable cause. It can also lead to no further action. That's the point! Our laws give law enforcement officers a range of judgment to execute their duties on our behalf. This judgment permits them to ask reasonable questions and expect reasonable answers. There's no infringement on our liberty in this process. They're not allowed to cart us off to a dungeon for life but they are allowed to detain and question if they think there's a good reason for it. The fact that federal law enforcement officers have being doing exactly what Arizona law enforcement officers are now going to do is really all the more reason for people to back off the hysteria that's been generated by this. Arizona is taking legitimate action and no one is going to be harmed by these simple steps except those who are in this country illegally. They have one more thing to worry about - they now know they're not getting a free pass from the local police in Arizona like they can in some other areas of the country. Maybe they'll pack up and move to L.A. where they seem to have not much good sense. Citizens should be happy about that. I think you may be confusing what happens after an arrest with what can happen before an arrest. The "burden of proof" to convict someone of a crime is indeed on the State. But the same "burden of proof" is not at all required to investigate something that appears reasonably suspicious. Suspicion is just that - not proof. It's grounds to stop, question, detain, and get reasonable answers. It's a well established principle in law enforcement that most everyone is the country clearly understands. No intelligent citizen would think to tell a lawman to "buzz off" just because they're asked to identify themselves. There are many cases where we are all required to identify ourselves and there's nothing wrong with that although it can get rather annoying if you let it get under your skin. You need to read up on "stop and identify" statues of the various States. It's not as cut and dry as you may think. Suddenly, however, it seems there's a lot of uproar over Arizona adding illegal immigration to the violations of law against which it will act. It's really just politically motivated and designed to get people to thinking their liberty is being threatened. It's the other way around. If we keep ham stringing our law enforcement officers they won't be able to do anything about the problem. Eventually it will grow to such proportions as to require much more severe actions. I still remember when the Miranda rules came out and how dumb that seemed to those of us in law enforcement. I certainly understood the principles behind it but the procedure was implemented in a childish manner. And, by the way, a mistaken arrest is just that - a mistake - which is not at all the same as a deliberate false arrest. Mistakes can be made and if negligence or maliciousness is not involved then liability is limited. You don't have much of case for false arrest in that situation. If you looked like the guy that did it and got picked up for it you can't blame the police for that one. It's unfortunate but just a mistake. It's good when the government is honest enough to admit such things and sometimes, unfortunately, they won't but they won't be prosecuted for it.

 

No it doesn't. Showing ID is not an infringement on liberty. Again showing ID is common. And if you are legal and have ID because you are legal then it is no different than showing ID for any other reason regardless of what it is associated with. And by the way having to show a drivers license is associated with innocence or guilt.

 

The problem I see with this argument is that a police officer can ask you for ID regardless of whether or not you are driving; if you are wandering around on someone else's property for instance.

You seem to be saying that it is legal to require aliens to obtain and to carry either a work visa or a green card, but that they can't be asked to show them (unless they want to be helpful and expedite the process).

And why would 'sanctuary cities' go to the trouble of forbidding their police from checking legal status if it is already unlawful to do so, as you say it is?

 

Well thats different from state to state. However, in no state can the police arrest you simply for failing to show ID. In every state the burden of proof lies with the LEO. The issue is about police asking for ID - no problem there. The problem is with someone being forced to show ID or suffer arrest as a consequence.

I am not saying that at all. Requiring aliens to carry proof of citizenship at all times and being required to produce it when asked isn't a problem. The problem is with a law which will end up requiring *citizens* to do so as well or risk being put in jail.

 

First of all, yes, showing a driver's license is associated with innocence/guilt. However, this is a case of willingly taking part of a privileged and regulated activity in which one knows beforehand that having proof of license is required. One can always avoid having to show proof of license simply by the expedient of not ever driving. Driving a car is not the same thing as other activities. Current law recognizes this - hence the reason why in NO state can the police arrest you simply for failing to produce ID. In essence, when you drive, you are agreeing to forgo certain rights which are otherwise protected by law.

In other cases failure to produce ID has no legal repercussions associated with it. In all those cases, failure to show ID at worst merely results in a refusal of service. They can't call the police and have you arrested and all the legal consequences which go with that.

In short, the examples you give have key differences between them and a law which requires one to be able to prove their citizenship. Current law recognizes these key differences.