Arizona Immigration Bill - What is objectionable

LOL!

Here's to hoping that Texas follows Arizona's lead.

 

But take your birth certificate along if you go there. :laugh:


I wonder if a passport is sufficient?

 

If you would read the bill you would know what is sufficient.

 

You might be teaching me something. If it is unfair to have a picture ID as our Dem friends have told us when we vote, it would be to much to have an ID to prove who you are on the streets. I recall many democrats saying that over the last few elections. I guess if we did away with passports would be good too, do you think our neighbors and the rest of the world would agree with that? Is that what you are trying to teach?

 

The commercial truck driver's license wasn't enough nor the additon of a social security number. They took him in and gave him a bad time anyway.

By the way, I was making a joke. Lighten up and look for the humor in life.

 

Well, I hope you are still joking. If you were informed about this law you would know it isn't in effect yet.

 

I live in Texas less than 10 miles from the Mexican border. And I live with the effects of illegal immigration every day. It's amazing that when I cross over into Mexico THEY have no problem asking me for my visa or passport when I am walking down the street (it HAS happened) but when they come here- "it's damaging to our diplomatic relations"- or some such nonsense.

I certainly believe that our Federal immigration laws are at least as messed up as our Tax law and need fixin', but I don't hold out much hope for the Fed to fix it. So I'm all for States upholding their rights and enforcing the LAW that the Feds won't.

 

I am sure you are correct in what you say. We have always proudly claimed we are the country of the free. I do not believe Mexico has ever made such a claim. Since we have always claimed the high road on this any change we make that reduces our real or imagined freedoms will be criticized.

I agree the laws need fixing. I believe the laws can be fixed without violating legal citizens and aliens civil rights. This may be difficult to do and may require politicians to go against popular thought and ideas. I believe Congress is afraid to touch this issue as they know whatever they do they will receive lots of fire ... and sadly I do not see much political courage in Congress ... in either party.

 

You know Crabtownboy the Soviet Russian required several forms of paperwork and identification before entry into each town. Your neighbors could be KGB operatives telling the government about everything you are doing. And well since they do it there we might as well do it here.

 

I don't quite think you understand. As an American citizen living in Mexico (or visiting beyond the border region) I was required to have a visa to prove that I was not an illegal immigrant. My point is that our government has THE VERY SAME LAWS (or similar) and yet the ILLEGALS and their liberal supporters whine foul. Why is it OK for THEIR country to enforce the laws, but not for our country to??

ILLEGAL aliens have but ONE right- the right to pack their bags and go home.

 

You are 100 percent correct. As they say today, been there, done that. I wouldn't be into this discussion if all of our government would enforce the law, but there are to many place that don't.

Many place have told the Feds that they wouldn't, many groups have said they will do all in their power to break the law. If one does not like the law, try and get it changed by casting your vote.

How would some of these folks feel when they come home find some one else living in their home.

I have dear friend who is an American Indian and he has told me in his 68 years he has never met a white or black man who wanted to give him their home and land, just talk about out how it came into the hand of the whites and how unfair that was.

 

Please bear with the newbie

In as far as this reasoning applies to illegals I agree. However, this law has 3 basic problems I see

1. It is unprecedented in state law
2. It is likely to cause an undue burden on one particular set of citizens
3. Its too vague in some of its key stipulations

 

Unprecedented in state law

First this law needs to be set in the context of state law. Till this time no state has ever had a law which requires one to prove legal citizenship. Stop and identify laws have been fairly circumspect due to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In effect there is no state where a person can be arrested simply for failing to produce ID. Most states don't even have stop and identify laws and in those which do simply stating your name is sufficient to meet the identification requirements. A few others mention producing ID, but in all cases qualifications such as "if the person's possession" or failure to stipulate penalties for non-compliance means that even in these states failure to produce ID on demand is an arrestable offence.

Even AZ's stop and identify law is easily met without any burden to the law abiding citizen:
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

All real penalties are associated with giving false information or refusing to give any information at all. And in those cases the burden of proof clearly rests with the LEO.

In short, there is no state law which requires that a person always be able to prove who they are, much less if they are rightful citizens. When it comes to identification in state laws the burden of proof remains with the LEO and the concept of innocent till proven guilty if retained.


I also want to point out a couple of fallacious arguments used in support of this bill:
1. Having to provide documentation of citizenship is no different than having to provide ID when doing things like making a purchase with a credit card.
Failure to produce ID for things like cc purchases doesn't carry with it any penalty of law. If the clerk asks and you fail to produce the ID you simply can't make the purchase, but there is not possibility of you being detained or arrested. There is no issue of guilt or innocence at stake.

2. Having to produce proof of citizenship is no different than having to produce a driver's license during a traffic stop.
The main difference between these two things is that a driver's license has to be produced *only* in the course of operating a motor vehicle on public roads. If you don't drive, you don't ever have to produce the license. Unlike many other legal activities, driving on public roads is considered a privilege and a regulated one at that. By driving you tacitly agree to abide by the laws associated with the road and one of those is having proof of license with you while you do so. This is not the same as being a citizen and having to produce proof of citizenship.

 

Here's an example of stupidity in government education:



"May 13, 2010
Dear District 113 Parents, Students and Staff:


As you are aware, there has been significant media attention to Township High School District 113’s decision to not send the Highland Park High School varsity girls’ basketball team to a tournament in Scottsdale, Arizona scheduled for December, 2010. This decision is not a political statement regarding the State of Arizona’s recently enacted legislation regarding immigration.


Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. District 113 boasts a diverse student population and, as a school district, we believe in equal opportunity for each of our students. The selection of a girls’ varsity basketball team for the 2010-2011 winter athletic season will take place in November, 2010. The team has yet to be selected. When our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty. We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law. Our athletes will play in a competitive basketball tournament during their winter break.


Another important clarification relates to the misreporting that is present in some media outlets. The basketball team has not qualified for a national championship tournament. Rather, they were striving to find a venue for next season that would stretch them and serve to unify the group as a team. The protocol to take a trip within the US is to request approval from the Executive Council team. The Arizona travel request was submitted to Executive Council just two weeks ago. The request was denied for the reasons previously stated.


I believe it is important that our community members understand the facts of the situation. While I am sure that with a complex issue such as this, reasonable people can disagree on a decision, it is essential that the community understand that our primary motivation is to show care and concern for all of our students. Ensuring equality for all is a fundamental value for District 113.


Sincerely,
George V. Fornero
Superintendent"

 

Vague in its stipulations

As has already been pointed out the terms "reasonable suspicion", "lawful contact", and "reasonable suspicion" are pretty well defined terms within the law. Up to this point the law is fairly similar to some state stop and identify laws.

The problem exists with the latter part, most specifically "a reasonable attempt". As far as stop and identify law goes in AZ this is not well defined. Up to this point in AZ law requirements to produce identification was well defined - you either showed a driver's license or stated your name, address and DOB. If you didn't do one of those the infraction and possible penalties was well defined. This concept "reasonable attempt" with regards to producing proof of who you are and if you legal has no precedence within AZ as far as I can tell. Thus, it is left up to the LEO to interpret this.

Does "reasonable attempt" include detention, or arrest or neither? Where does the burden of providing proof of citizenship lie, with the one stopped or with the LEO? This is the part that makes it a poor law. There is too much possibility that, in practice, this law will place the burden of proof on the citizen. If this happens it overturns all previous precedence and puts in danger the concept of innocent till proven guilty.

At the very least, this law has some civil rights issues which should be of concern. While it would be silly to claim its an out right racist law or some other extreme claim like this, it should be of concern to those who believe in rights that are inalienable and granted by the Creator. It potentially creates a unreasonable burden on the law-abiding citizen.

 

Why do I say that? Let me translate the Superintendent's letter:

"... This decision is not a political statement regarding the State of Arizona’s recently enacted legislation regarding immigration. ..."

The Superintendent made a "mistake" and put "is not" where "is" was suppose to be.

"... Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. ..."

Did someone in his District get denied an education by Arizona's law? No, but he's invoking an unrelated law to suggest it.

"... District 113 boasts a diverse student population and, as a school district, we believe in equal opportunity for each of our students. ..."

The Superintendent may have some players or players' parents that he know or thinks are in this country illegally or might be upset over what's happened in Arizona.

"... When our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty. ..."

Safety, security, and liberty? Give me a break! The Superintendent should give the parents back those permission slips he makes them sign to absolve his school district of any responsibility should anything happen to the students while on the trip. The schools are always very careful to cover their rear ends on such liability. No parental release - no participation. The parents are responsible.

"... We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law. ..."

Explain exactly how a student's "liberty" might be at risk? How are "safety" and "liberty" so closely linked? Could it be that someone is worried they might be found out, detained, and turned over to ICE while in Arizona. Maybe a parent? Maybe a teacher? Is the Superintendent here legally? How is anyone's "liberty" in jeopardy by going to play a basketball game in another State of our Union? Is there some kind of entry and exit visa requirement in force? Would Arizona deprive these high school basketball players of their "liberty"?

"... I believe it is important that our community members understand the facts of the situation. ..."

Yes, they sure do need to understand the facts and the Superintendent did not state them at all because he was busy making a political statement from his high and mighty pulpit.

Stupidity! Arrogant bureaucracy!

 

The "reasonable attempt" follows the "reasonable suspicion" and there's absolutely no problem with this! No one is going to be tried, convicted, and punished on the street. If you're a legal alien just have your identification ready to show like the law requires. If you're not get ready for a trip back to the border where you belong. You're making something out of nothing! We need to stop illegal immigration else none of us will enjoy the liberty we have.

 

Undue burden on one set of citizens

Now if this does turn out to be a law where the burden of proof of citizenship remains solidly with the LEOs, then it won't really place an undue burden on anyone. Any legal citizen should be able to go where he wants w/o having to carry proof of citizenship if they so desire. This is the case now and if it remains so in AZ then any complaints or concerns about the law will have been misplaced.

However, if it turns out that the burden of proof of citizenship is shifted at all to the citizen then we have a double problem. First of all the civil liberty of *all* citizens has been weakened as a result, at least in theory. More significantly, an undue burden will almost certainly be placed on one particular group of citizens in practice.

So sure, if the law turns out that the citizen has the burden of proving citizenship, then in theory all citizens in AZ would have to start carrying proof of citizenship at all times. After all, lawful contact and reasonable suspicion can exist w/o a person having done wrong. This fact would be burdensome enough. However in practice it is highly unlikely that a non-Latino would ever fall under "reasonable suspicion". Thus, in it is the Latino citizen who will carry the burden of proof in practice while other ethic groups will have little or no burden fall on them.


Anyways, thats my analysis of the AZ immigration law.

 

There's no way to avoid some of that and also solve the problem. They just need to understand and be prepared. It's not a big price to pay for the continued liberty we enjoy. It's not even a minor inconvenience and, besides, nearly everyone nearly always carries their identification with them - it's necessary for so many things it would difficult to "leave home without it". They're not going to be tried, convicted, and punished on the street. They just need to understand and don't worry about it.

My brother-in-law looks like a Mexican at times - he's not but he could fool you. Years ago - before the present rules - he crossed over into Canada with a group of people and when he came back the INS detained him because he had no documentation. He'd left it at the hotel! But, after explaining the situation and some verification he was released on his merry way. It took a couple of hours. He didn't get mad over it, he didn't claim his rights were violated - he just laughed it off and remembered to carry his identification with him wherever he goes.