Arizona Immigration Law

[Frelga]

Meaning, it's not fair to get arrested for looking illegal, and police shouldn't really be setting up checkpoints to monitor that within the country (at the border is another issue, of course).

But if you are guilty of other legitimate crimes that would normally get you arrested...well then, by all means, arrest the person and check their citizenship/immigration status in the process. Make it part of the process so *anyone* who gets arrested gets processed that way, so it's not a racial profiling thing.

Yes, precisely.

And how does one look illegal, anyway? Other than looking brown and wearing work clothes?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I moved the posts about organic food and free trade to a separate thread. Please try to stay on topic.

[yovargas]

So to V-man or any other of our lawyer friends, how do you think this law will fair in court? Not sure how this sort of thing works, would lawsuits be going to SCOTUS at this point?

[The Tall Hobbit]

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a follow-on bill approved by Arizona legislators that make revisions to the state's sweeping law against illegal immigration — changes she says should quell concerns that the measure will lead to racial profiling.

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...n.Enforcement/

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So to V-man or any other of our lawyer friends, how do you think this law will fair in court? Not sure how this sort of thing works, would lawsuits be going to SCOTUS at this point?

There are several significant constitutional challenges to the law. The main one is that it infringes upon powers that are specifically reserved to the federal government. Arizona will argue that it had to do something because the federal government was failing to adequately control immigration, but I don't think that is a legally viable argument. This challenge should not be effected by the new amendment that Tall Hobbit mentions (which I haven't seen). The other challenges would be that it impermissibly requires/encourages searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, and that it violates the equal protection clause. To what extent these challenges would be mitigated by the new amendment, I can't say, because I haven't looked at in depth, but based on what I saw of the original law, I think it is a strong argument, bolstered by the fact that law enforcement largely supports the challenge. How it will play out in court is difficult to say, though.

As for the process, while it is likely to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, there will be an initial trial/trials in the District Court, then that will be appealed to the Court of Appeal, and then to the SCOTUS. So it will take some time. But someone will ask for stay of enforcement of the law in the meanwhile, and that will likely be granted.

[Inanna]

Mahima, the law has already been passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. The only question now is whether it will stand up to court scrutiny.

Yes, I meant that I hope it doesn't go through the court process...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, if it doesn't go through the court process, than the law will stand, so I hope it does.

[Cerin]

What economic circumstances have changed in the countries to the south of the US?

My understanding is that NAFTA devastated small Mexican farmers, and the flow of illegals has increased drastically since it's been in effect.

'Globalization' is a disaster for everyone but the transnational corporations.

[anthriel]

That's an interesting thought, Cerin.

Hey, does anyone know if it is possible to get a driver's license if you are not a legal citizen? It's been so long since I got a driver's license, I can't remember. Do you have to show your birth certificate, etc.? (I do have a reason for the question, btw... )

I just registered my daughter for high school and had to produce a copy of her birth certificate, which completely confuses me, because I know there are many children in the public school system who are illegal immigrants. How do they manage to get in if they don't have "paperwork"? My daughter couldn't have.

I think my problem overall is I don't understand how the system works now, and how illegals are so easily integrated into our country. Wasn't there some point in the past in which illegals were asked to produce papers, and couldn't? Is the difference now that this new law is in place that without papers, more questions are asked than before, and possibly deportation will follow?

Overall, though, as the lone Arizonan here on the board, I have to say... yikes. I have so many friends who are brown... I was at work today with two Mexicans, an Indian (from India), a Navaho, an Iraqi, a girl from Bangladesh, and a Guatemalan, and thought: they could all be pulled over because of the way they LOOK. That is just CRAZY. I feel embarrassed to be a white freckly redhead! As if I am so obviously law abiding, and they are not so obviously law abiding. Because of... the way we happen to look. Bizarre.

Believe me, I would love to own the generally beautiful skin of any of them rather than my own pale mess. (I've never thought my skin was anything other than crap... I hate the white and the freckles!!) That Guatemalan girl has GORGEOUS, flawless skin, and I absolutely am envious to the bone. She's beautiful, and not a speck of makeup anywhere. She truly has perfect skin, and I SO don't...

...except I know my freckles keep me insured against potential random harrassment by the police. That's just... weird. I'm not sure how else to say it. Like something out of a bad movie. Wrong. Strange. Breathtakingly bizarre.

I don't think the law will stand as signed, and for this I am grateful. However, it might have done a good deed: even if it survives a very short life it has definitely brought the problem of illegal immigration to the national eye-level, and I think that's a good thing. The federal government REALLY needs to address this.

The boycott stuff makes me sad... a lot of those who seek those low-paying jobs work in the tourist industry... housekeeping in hotels, groundskeeping, etc. It's sad that people trying to make a statement by boycotting Arizona hotels (and I understand the sentiment of the gesture, I do) might just be sandbagging those poor folks who are struggling so hard to get by.

By the way, Arizona iced tea is made in New York. Drink away.

[Cerin]

My understanding, from listening to a radio discussion about the new law, is that someone can't be stopped just based on their appearance. The conduct by the law officer has to be lawful; that is, the officer has to have a reason to stop someone, and then if there is reason for them to be suspicious about legal status in the context of the stop, they can ask for proof of status.

edit

Here's the text of the law copied from another site:

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW , ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Someone on another forum asked the question how the revised version of the Arizona law is really different from the Federal McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which provides for a similar ability to deport aliens under similar contexts.

The explanation that they provided as the rationale for the passage of the new law was that when Arizona attempted to use the Federal law, they were stymied by the Federal courts which did not want to enforce it.

The idea was to pass a state law that was comparable to the requirements of the already existing Federal law, but being at the state level, it would go through state courts.

I don't have access to primary sources but the following excerpt is from the UMass website http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html :

The McCarran-Walter Act ... contained language delineating the ...right to deport 'any alien who has engaged or has had purpose to engage in activities "prejudicial to the public interest" or "subversive to national security"'"

The interpretation of this using the Federal law as the basis is that illegal aliens taking jobs, getting government aid and schooling (taking taxpayer dollars) etc was "prejudicial to the public interest" (and some would argue that porous borders are a threat to national security).

However, the question becomes what you do. My understanding from reading info on this in various places is that Arizona attempted to use the Federal law originally as the basis for doing deportations, but chose to pass the state law for the reasons mentioned above.

In the revised version of the Arizona law (requiring that some kind of encounter with the law must already have occurred, that you can't just stop someone for what they look like), I am not sure that there is much of a difference from the existing Federal law, except for the issue of enforcement and the use of state courts vs. federal courts.

I know that checks of immigration status are routine for people in police custody on other places, and there was outrage in the case of the murder of some New Jersey teens in Newark when it was found that they were murdered by an illegal alien who had previously been in custody, and the police had failed to check his immigration status then, and he was subsequently released with the consequence that these teens were later killed. Had they checked his status, he would have been held in custody or deported.

How is the revised version of the Arizona law different, since Federal law already allows immigration status to be checked under McCarran-Walter, and this is routinely done in many jurisdictions as the revised Arizona law would allow?

Is the only difference that it is state jurisdiction (which is only being sought because Arizona felt it had no recourse)?

I am not an expert on this, so I could be reading things wrong, and I am just musing on these ideas that I saw presented elsewhere (on other forums that I occasionally read, but where I am not a member).

A Google search turned up a blog where people are asking the question about whether the Arizona approach would have saved the New Jersey teens. (The blog has an obvious slant on this, but the fact is that people are asking this question.)

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/20 ... appen.html


BrianIs AtYou

[River]

Anth, legal immigrants would need to show their visa or green card in addition to proof of age/whatever other ID requirement the state has to get a driver's license. Fortunately for the legal immigrants, visas go in their passports and green cards have just about every form of identification and anti-fraud gimmick available embedded in them so their needed documents are in one tidy package. In CO, an immigrant's license is only valid as long as their papers are valid. I imagine AZ is the same. I also imagine that there are ways to work the system if an illegal is creative enough. In fact, if the illegal is plucky and of age, he or she could get themselves an international driver's license

In WA I had to show my birth certificate as proof of citizenship and, more importantly, age. In CO I had to show my passport or birth certificate when I traded in my WA license, so I showed them my passport. My birth certificate remains in its nice safe folder in a nice little box at my parents' house.

[Lidless]

From Cerin's post, so long as stopping people randomly in the street and asking for ID / proof of status doesn't start happening, then all well and good - I think.

But we all know that rules can be bent and that lawful contact, ie 'First Contact' can probably be made up if required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

Another point though. If you start to get a thorough background check based on a minor discretion, what's to stop a similar procedure being brought into law to check if your tax records are up to date, alimony is being paid etc just because you jaywalked. Is that something the police should be doing? They already do it for driving (checking insurance).

[vison]

At the risk of being told I'm off topic: the Family Services Branch of the BC government can issue arrest warrants for "deadbeat Dads" and if a guy is stopped and that warrant is there, he'll be arrested and his license suspended.

It has a couple of good ideas attached to it, of course, but the warrants are seldom rescinded, even if the child support is caught up to date. The loss of the drivers' license generally means loss of a job and then how is child support to be paid?

[MithLuin]

Yeah, getting *out* of the system once you're in it is always tricky.....

[yovargas]

Yesterday, my best friend, who is Haitian, became legal to work and go to school here thanks to some immigration laws passed for Haitian relief after the earthquake.
Two days ago, it was illegal for him to try and make a living.
Today, it is not.
On these whims, entire lives are destroyed or saved.

[MithLuin]

Yes, it is true that immigration laws deal with people's lives and livelihoods. It's hardly trivial no matter how you look at it.

But I do believe nations are allowed to make laws about who may enter and under what circumstances. So, people who decide to come here anyway, despite what the laws are...well, that is illegal.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't want to seek a future in which they can support their families and live their lives. Of course they will and should! It's just...well, some people are always going to be turned away, and that doesn't mean they are being denied the opportunity, they're just being denied the opportunity to do that...here.

I think we probably should make it a lot easier for people to come here legally, but we're not going to have a completely open border...and we shouldn't.

Another incentive for coming here that hasn't been brought up in this thread is that any baby born on American soil is a citizen, even if the parents are here illegally. While of course the children of immigrants are natural born citizens, I've thought that the 'rewarding' of criminal behavior was an odd legal situation for awhile. Sneaking into the country specifically to give birth here seems...convoluted.

(A driver's license is not proof of citizenship, but it should be considered proof that one has legally entered that state. Sorta.)

[Alatar]

I think we probably should make it a lot easier for people to come here legally, but we're not going to have a completely open border...and we shouldn't.

Why, exactly? What's wrong with a completely open market in the most completely capitalist society in the world?

[Frelga]

Thing is, it is also illegal to hire someone who can't prove they have the right to work in the US. Yet... Well, see upthread.

It's a no-brainer - to stop the flow of illegal immigrants stop companies hiring them. That's not what's happening and that's not what the law does.

I've said this before - the laws against illegal immigration are nt design to keep people out. They are designed to keep them terrorizes so they don't dare to protest the miserable living conditions and terrible pay.

Here's an idea - deport repeated offenders for employing illegal immigrants.

[River]

On these whims, entire lives are destroyed or saved.

Before he got his green card, S wallowed in fear that either 1) his paperwork would be lost and he'd have to restart the whole process, 2) there'd be a rule change that would completely throw everything for a loop, or 3) some border agent, you know, the guys you meet when you cross back into the US, would just arbitrarily decide to throw him back...and when that happens there's almost nothing to be done. Obviously, neither happened and now that he's got a green card he can enter through the citizen line with me. They're a bit more civilized in the citizen line - more benefit of the doubt, I guess. But the immigration process is scary. Layers of bureaucracy, rules within rules, and there's so much riding on it. Even though things usually go pretty smoothly (especially if you get a lawyer) it's hard not to be scared or superstitious...because if some idiot in Nebraska loses your papers, it's your fault. If the border agents decide they don't like your face, it's your fault. If they forget to stamp or sign something, it's your fault. If the Mexican border station doesn't follow procedure and you cross back into the US with your student visa and foreign passport you and your American buddy will be up half the night being interrogated* and so on.

*This actually happened to S. Fortunately, he was too tired to be nervous or angry and his friend kept his temper and the guy running the show, after determining that all they'd caught was a pair of idiot grad students, just went through the rest of the motions so everyone could go home and go to bed. But they were asking him stuff about his family back in Serbia - who they were, what they did, and then they asked his friend these same questions about him. What the...?