Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

IMMIGRATION: Some perspective on the Arizona law

Letter by MADELYN SMITH, Lakewood on June 8, 2010 at 12:50 pm with 101 Comments »
June 8, 2010 12:50 pm

My nephew in France writes:

As a resident alien, I have read about the issue in Arizona with interest. This is what you have to do if you want to stay in France past the limit allowed for passport holding tourists:

1. Purchase the appropriate visa from a French Consulate before you arrive. To attain the student/work visa you have to provide proof of financial means for the time period you are applying for and proof of medical insurance which is accepted in France. They check. If you are planning to work you have to provide proof of employment beforehand; if you are going to attend school you have to have the acceptance letter. They check.

2. Once you arrive, you have X days (I forget how many but it was reasonable) to present yourself to the local police department. There you to have a picture taken, fingerprints made, papers screened, and then scheduled to return for a physical screening by a doctor (with blood drawn, as req’d) after which you are given your carte de sejour.

3. I am required by French Law to carry my carte de sejour at all times and I may be asked to present my ID card at any time, for any reason, to the authorities in order to prove my resident status.

All the above was a pain and each step cost a 100 euro, but if you want to study and/or work in France, guess what, you get a carte de sejour

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 101
  1. Publico says:

    Apples to oranges comparison. Keep going to school so that you can learn to make a reasoned argument.

  2. Really Publico. Explain if you would please….how this is apples and oranges.

    I was about to say “of course” to all those requirements. Welcome to any other country besides the USA

  3. Ironically, Mexico has almost identical requirements–especially if you are from South America.

  4. LOL!

    Cheryl?

  5. Publico says:

    The nephew and his aunt are trying to offer support for the AZ law. The subterranean claim is that the US does not have an process for keeping track of people who have overstayed their visa, which we do and it is as complex and costly as the French process. All this somehow relates, according to them, to the real problems of illegal crossings which are felonies and illegal stayings which are, by law, administrative violations.
    Since the AZ law is probably unconstitutional and because of its obvious point of identifying people by how they look to presume some sort of violation, many of us are opposed to the implementation of that law on 29 July this year.
    French visa processes have nothing to do with the Mexican illegal alien problem. It is apples to oranges.

  6. “Since the AZ law is probably unconstitutional and because of its obvious point of identifying people by how they look …”

    ???
    .
    Reciprocity… google it … toyotaman.

  7. lovethemountains says:

    Publico, shall we offer a welcome wagon basket, complete with fruit and other goodies, to everyone who who crosses our borders without going through the process required by law?

    And BTW, the U.S. Border Patrol pretty well documents the number of illegal entries at the U.S./Mexican border that are not Mexican. What is the problem with securing our border and allowing entry only by lawful means? Can you clue me in?

  8. LuckyCharm says:

    It IS apples and oranges. This letter is talking about a foreign national planning an extended stay in a different country. The AZ law is about accosting citizens and non-citizens alike to demand “papers.” In all my many travels to France, I have never even once been approached by any authority who demanded proof of my right to be there, despite looking, talking, or acting differently. The carte de séjour is needed for many things, but I have never even heard of anybody just getting jacked up on the street and having it demanded because they looked funny.

  9. Apples to apples… both are about immigration and law… you can spin how ever you like …

    “The AZ law is about accosting ….” Pffft.

  10. donjames says:

    Yup. LC, my uncle said the same thing about his trip to France in 1944. (Something about the uniform I guess) But how many women in burkas have you spoken to about their experiences in France?

  11. LuckyCharm says:

    That’s the point, dj — it’s not supposed to be about whether you’re wearing a uniform, a burka, or a serape. That’s profiling, and the law prohibits it. Most of the people who say it’s no big deal, just carry your ID, yadayadayada, are white and speak without an accent. What about citizens and/or legal residents who look Hispanic, speak with a thick accent, and perhaps hold down a menial job? How much harassment do they stand to endure under the AZ law? This law, in effect, legally requires a greater burden of proof from them simply on account of the way they look, and it violates the principle of racial non-discrimination. If you were one of two drivers stopped for a burned-out license plate light, and the other driver was allowed to sit in his car talking on the phone while his ticket was written, while your family was rudely pulled from the car and placed face-down on the ground to be searched while a dog was called in to sniff out your vehicle, purely on account of the way you look, I think you’d be pretty outraged too.

  12. Sumner401 says:

    The law here in the US isn’t much different and just like the US France has a lot of people that do not do as the law calls for.
    Are all you folks that fear and hate the brown skinned people that live to the South of us so blinded by that fear and hate you can’t see that? So Blinded that you now after decades of hate and scorn for France want to emulate them?
    To what depths will you sink?
    The AZ law not only allows for racial profiling it encourages it.
    To think or say other wise is to be completely dishonest.

  13. Dishonest is assigning attributes to AZs new law that do not exist. Dishonest is giving Federal law that is more restrictive a pass. Dishonest is commenting with blinders on . . .

  14. Agreed Nanook. Either dishonest or blind to reality.

    I grew up my whole life living among “brown skinned people” whom I loved wholeheartedly. All legal immigrants or born in the USA; decent, hard-working folks. Supporting controls at our border has nothing to do with like/dislike measurments and only those whose feelings alone govern their decision-making would even presume otherwise.

    I have empathy for the desperate and have done what I can to encourage and empower folks in that situation. Love is the motive…but part of that love has been to encourage them to work with the system and do what they need to do with integrity and honor.

    Love and respect are morethan feelings of sympathy. In fact, sympathy often leads people to enable and hinder the ones they love.

    Would that we might all grow up and start dealing with the real world rather than the utopia we’ve created in our imaginations which, for some, appear to be soaked in a bold French red.

  15. Sumner401 says, “The AZ law not only allows for racial profiling it encourages it.”

    The Arizona law “requires” racial profiling. The word “shall” makes it a requirement.

    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).

    The enforcement official or agency is required to act on suspicion, alone.

    The question remains, what constitutes “reasonable suspicion?”

  16. LuckyCharm says:

    It’s worth noting that France’s immigration system is much more streamlined than ours. Requirements are strict, but you get a temporary receipt immediately upon application, authorizing you to live and work there and utilize their public services. The whole process for a renewable work/residency permit usually takes a few months, versus many years in the US.

    Under Sarkozy, some jurisdictions are enacting measures similar to AZ’s law, sparking many passionate demonstrations and denouncements from grassroots groups. Of course, it’s mostly people hailing from North Africa who are targeted by police there. Just like here, bloggers are denouncing these new measures as “Nazism” and expressing shame that their beloved country, known as the “Land of Human Rights,” would go to such lengths.

    Guess we’re more like them than we want to admit sometimes….

  17. LuckyCharm says:

    nanook, which federal law requires legal US citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times? Because anybody an officer decides looks “suspicious” will be required to produce such proof on the spot, or be arrested. Not all illegal immigrants look suspicious, and not all legal citizens don’t. I can just see the lawyers lining up, licking their chops at the prospect of wrongful arrest suits, complete with damages for lost wages, lost contracts, injuries suffered in the course of arrest, emotional trauma, etc….

  18. “That’s profiling, and the law prohibits it.”

    That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you Cheryl…

  19. …paranoia masquerading as “deep thinking” … the idea that at some future point, the government might actually take such an interest in Cheryl’s personal life that it would begin systematically “inspecting” it… if she went to Arizona…

  20. LuckyCharm says:

    Again, righties love to equate completely unrelated issues. There is absolutely no similarity between a government secretly spying on citizens, and police throwing legal citizens in jail just because they look or sound funny and don’t carry “papers.”

  21. Again, lefties love to beat down the strawman . Where in the Arizona law does it call for “police throwing legal citizens in jail just because they look or sound funny and don’t carry “papers.”

    ?

  22. Roncella says:

    LuckyCharm, France has got to be looking better and better to you. You are so happy with their laws and socialistic form of government you really need to consider re-locating there.

    Our Borders need closing now. We can’t go on allowing illegal Mexicans and others to continue coming across are southern borders by the thousands, needng jobs, medical care, schooling, shelter, etc.

    The Governor of Arizona has more Courage than President Bush or President Obama combined when it comes to stopping the illigals and making it a topic that has become very high on the things to do list for both the Congress and the President.

    President Obama will use it to allow all the Mexicans already here to become new citizens and new Democrats. Thats whats it all about for him politics as usual. Remember his new motto, don’t let an emergency go unused. Use it to pass a bill that otherwise would not be possible to pass, like unlimited Anmesty……

  23. LOL…

    “paranoia masquerading as “deep thinking”…

    “police throwing legal citizens in jail just because they look or sound funny and don’t carry “papers.”

  24. donjames says:

    Polago, since you are singling-out a particular legal term to in an effort to further the demagoguery in which you lefties are attempting to cloak this law, you should concede the existence of the qualifier “reasonable” and how it twice occurs in the text you cited.

    From the legal dictionary:

    reasonable adj., adv. in law, suitable, just, proper, fair, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.

    e.g.: “A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE” or “WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS”

    Cherries are still a bit green, P, no?

  25. More “paranoia masquerading as deep thinking”…
    .

    America has come back home
    Submitted by LuckyCharm on November 5, 2008 – 9:58am.
    What a Relief — America Survives

    I figured out why I was so relieved tonight. It’s because I have spent the last six years (that’s when I realized how radical the Bush administration was) on pins and needles that we were going to lose America and do tremendous damage to the world. Bush could do something monumentally wrong at any moment. But even more important was that Cheney had so degraded the American system of government that for the first time in my life, I wondered if the idea of America would survive.

    Would they fix the elections? Would they make up some fake emergency to stay in power? Would they find some nefarious way to make sure John McCain won the elections? Did the powers-that-be secretly control these things? Was our democracy real?

  26. donjames says:

    And no, LC, the point is that anyone wearing an American Military uniform would not be required to present papers since it would be fairly obvious they were legally in the country – which, I would bet, would also have been the case with you.

    And how would you know what someone looked like under a burka?

  27. The same ol’ apologists are again hard at work here trying to justify illegal actions. Sumner 401, throwing the ,gasp!!, racist bomb! is so predictable from twisted liberals it’s always anticipated. These weidos are against everything Israel and it’s people stand for but have this passion for supporting criminals and law breakers. Go figure, it’s been said before that liberalism is a mental disorder.

  28. I take pleasure in observing the the frequent and predictable contradictions from her and a few other “lefties”…

  29. larsman says:

    Hello again my dear LC- Nazis did not want to deport Jews, they wanted to kill them and blame them for the Wiemar Republic’s financial failure after WWI as a reason to turn a Chancellor into a Fuhrer and begin forcibly acquiring territory beginning with the Sudetenland. I see no ovens for mexicans in AZ and neither do you. Please stop it. You insult my dad who liberated thousands of (not only) Jews in Austria and Germany. Your ignorance is flawless. The under-reported atrocities of Stalin are even more proof of how much better America is compared to real tyranny. This is yet another reason why we need more history and less psychology taught, maybe more math, too, ya think?

  30. Thank you jim and lars et. al. as I had grown quite weary of LC’s utter lack of self-awareness. Some things just aren’t worth the energy.

    If I could give LC a gift, it would be a lens that permits her to see something down the road a piece, and the capacity for mixing a healthy dose of reason with all that emotional claptrap.

    Many are insulted by the presumptions of LC and a few others on this forum who would no doubt be truly surprised to know the amount of love, time and energy many conservatives, especially Christian ones, pour into encouraging and helping those less fortunate.

    The myth that conservatives are heartless is one of the worst embraced by naive, and bigoted people. That’s right…the reactions to Sarah Palin for instance, are the reactions of prejudice — the presumption that a white, middle-class, non-Ivy League, white, very attractive woman could not possibly have anything of value to offer in the hideously deformed world of politics we must all endure today.

    I have seen as much prejudice among the educated as I EVER witnessed among my working class community growing up. It’s a crying shame these folks can be so visually challenged, but alas they are.

    Let’s carry on.

  31. Sumner401 says:

    Aaaaah yes tow the party line or you are (fill in the extremist label of the day).
    Anti-Semitic, pro terrorist, pro illegal, lunatic, liberal, leftie, leftist, it goes on and on.
    Then make sure to mention the ‘strawman’.
    The irony is amazing.

  32. Sumner401 says:

    Gosh Lars, can you get a bit more hyperbolic?
    I mean really, who do you think you are, glen beck?

  33. Sumner401, how’s that kool aid taste? I believe your post at 6:38 is what can be described as “party line”. “fear and hate brown-skinned people”? Get over it dude. You guys have been reveiled to be the real bigots and racists. Keep ‘em on the plantation with welfare and food stamps, yeah that’s the liberal mindset. All you really care about is their votes to keep your leftist ideology alive. Many minorities are wise to you clowns, it’s just a matter of time before you lose them too.

  34. So, Donjames, now that we know the definition of the word reasonable, the question is still on the table.

    What constitutes “reasonable suspicion?”

    This law gives no instruction as to what indicators are necessary to formulate reasonable suspicion.

    So, if you were the one to decide who appeared to be in this country illegally, what would raise your suspicions? Please be reasonable.

  35. Sumner401 says:

    Sometimes I really worry about this country when I read just how brainwashed those on the right really are.

  36. Here’s a question for ya P… what constitutes ” unreasonable “?

    When you can answer that, you’ll have the answer to your question…

  37. LuckyCharm says:

    Ron: The AZ law has nothing to do with closing borders. Brewer has done nothing along that line.

    dj: Not everybody wearing a US military uniform is in the country legally. One guy in my former Reserve unit had to get out temporarily because his visa expired. He later got back in, once the paperwork had been resolved. Still, if authorities had been targeting his ethnic group, nothing would have kept him from wearing his uniform even after his application expired. There are many right now just like him.

    frosty: No one is trying to “justify illegal actions.” We want to prevent them. But hey, you know what? I say let’s give up and let AZ bankrupt itself on lawyer fees for unlawful arrests, because you can bet that every single Hispanic American who’s detained on the basis of “suspicion” will want to rake in some of that dough.

    lars: How did this become about Nazis?

    sozo: Again, a lot of fluff, but no facts or logical argument.

  38. iamlimm says, “what constitutes ” unreasonable “? ”

    I suppose you mean what constitutes unreasonable suspicion of illegal entry into the United States.

    The answer can only be, any suspicion that isn’t reasonable. But I’m glad you spun my question to try to trick me because it points out the obvious ambiguity that this law imposes onto the legal authorities in Arizona.

    I dare anyone to honestly answer either, my question, or iamjimmy’s counter question with an answer that would guide the legal authorities in Arizona on how to reasonably apply their suspicions, as this law demands.

  39. LuckyCharm says:

    Oh, you haven’t been following these threads long enough, Polago. Examples that have been raised include a pickup truck carrying fifteen men who can’t speak English, or brown-skinned guys that hang around the entrance to Home Depot in the morning.

    If I had the slightest reason to travel to AZ, I’d be tempted to hang out with one of these “suspicious” bands and refuse to speak English to any arresting officer. It would be interesting to see how much money I could make off of that.

  40. donjames says:

    Better question, P; what is the definition of “probable cause”?

    Answer (again, from the legal dictionary):

    probable cause n. in law, sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming “help”), actions typical of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt “written across their faces,” are more difficult to categorize. “Probable cause” is often subjective, but if the police officer’s belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon, or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure.

    Is that any less vague in your mind than legal terms like “reasonable attempt” or “reasonable suspicion”? Yet probable cause is an accepted Constitutional standard in every court of law in this land.

    Are you advocating calling in the thought police?

  41. I wasn’t trying to trick you P…

    The term “unreasonable” appears inthe forth amendment…

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Good Golly!

    What constitutes “unreasonable?”

    This law gives no instruction as to what indicators are necessary to formulate unreasonable.

    Don’t be unreasonable…

  42. Here ya go P…

    As far as “reasonable suspicion” is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It’s not race — Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0qQ6QL4kY

  43. For example: “Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling,” says Kobach. “An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.” That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0qQ789YMg

  44. This one’s for you Cheryl… (complete with one of you favorite phrases)

    But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver’s license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0qQ7RJ3Te

  45. “Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.”

    It does? Where?

    “The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally.”

    It does? Where?

    “Are you advocating calling in the thought police?”

    I didn’t write the law. I asked a question about what the law says, which remains largely unanswered.

  46. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, a WA state license isn’t considered proof of citizenship under AZ law, since non-citizens can obtain a license. If you were accosted in AZ, the arresting officer wouldn’t have to accept your WA DL as proof of citizenship. He wouldn’t even have to accept your AZ DL as proof if he thought it was bogus. Basically, if that cop has it in for you, you’re not going home that night.

  47. donjames says:

    Mercurial answers LC and P, but no one should be surprised.

    P, in order to achieve the standards in law you seem to be demanding, a jurisdiction would have to employ something along the lines of a thought police in order to really know what the arresting officer was thinking in a probable cause or reasonable suspicion scenario. Again, if an individual is falsely arrested/ detained, the individual has legal recourse in our country – we call it the judicial system and it is most friendly to wrongly- accused defendants.

    From the legal dictionary:

    reasonable suspicion n. in law, is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. Police may detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to Stop and Frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.

    I see, here, where most of the AZ 1070 antagonists have a fundamental lack of familiarity with legal terms (never mind standards and theory). Not saying I am expert, but before one takes umbrage at law language one should remember that in law – and this includes contract law – all words have specific meaning and intent – especially nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. And when one repeatedly observes the use of particular words or phrases (terms), one may wish to research the legal definition before positing an opinion as to their validity in law.

    So, P, if you have trouble with the use of terms like “reasonable suspicion” in AZ law, you may want to lead the charge for the repeal of the fourth amendment. Good luck with that.

  48. I have no problem with the legal definition of reasonable suspicion, Donjames. My question has to do with how that definition is applied in this case. What is it about the person in question that raises those reasonable suspicions?

    Could it be, by definition, that all that officer needs to constitute reasonable suspicion about someone’s citizenship is their appearance, or accent?

    What would you look for in a person that would raise your reasonable suspicions as to the legality of their existence in our country? I’m sure there must be a reasonable answer.

    Put two Arizonans side by side. One of them is legal and one is not………..

  49. Roncella says:

    When will you Liberal/Progressives get your head out of the sand. illegal means illegal, it doesn’t matter if your Mexican or Iranian or from Pakistan. If you cross over the border illegally your breaking the law.

    If your slipping illegal drugs or a muderer, or rapitst, or if your coming here to pick vegtables, if you cross the border with Arizona, Texas, Calif. New Mexico, you are breaking the Law.

    Its sad that we have a President and Democrats in the Congress who put getting more easy Mexican votes with an Anmesty bill number one, so they can stay in power longer, rather then safeguard the Country and Americans who live and work along the southern borders.

    Change, Yes We Can, make America a Third world Country in less than four years.

    Jobs are scarce, our economy is tanking, Iraq and Afg. still taking American lifes, Iran about to have Nuclear capabilities, including a delivery system, Mortage/home buying very slow, oil spill disaster with no end in sight, and wheres our President ???

    He’s giving a graduation speech reading from his tele-prompter to some highschool students, Oh Yea, He’s the Man………..God help us all…………

  50. … he’s putting them to sleep reading from his tele[rompter… but I digress…

  51. “This law gives no instruction as to what indicators are necessary to formulate unreasonable”

    Sec. 11, paragraph B. , page 17 (the last page for those that can’t count) line 20

    The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
    ……………

    Here’s a bonus for ya…

    pg. 17 line 22…

    This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration , protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States Citizens.

  52. “Arizona’s new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.”

    It does? Where?

    Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read:
    C. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

  53. “The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally.”

    A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
    2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
    3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
    4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

  54. Apparently, the law has been amended because my PDF doesn’t have any these entries, iamjim. Thanks for the correction.

    It looks like Arizona recognized the fly in the ointment.

  55. Kooky… there are actually amendments to law… who’d a thunk?

    I don’t suppose there will be amendments to the law that really infringes on our civil rights (healthcare)… especially considering we
    had “to pass it to find out what’s in it” !!!

  56. “You’re welcome” would have worked for me.

  57. LuckyCharm says:

    A law professor at Cornell discusses this very issue here. He concludes, “The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of whether the officials act on expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how ‘reasonable suspicion’ has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.”

    But that’s okay. I really hope a bunch of Hispanic-American citizens decide to purposely go around without “papers” and be detained just so they can turn around and sue for wrongful arrest. Brewer must really love the lawyers of her state to have given them this windfall! What’s she gonna do, turn around and sign another law, requiring anybody with a brown complexion and a hint of an accent to carry around their birth certificate? I wouldn’t be surprised, considering….

  58. He said it better than I could have, LuckyCharm. Thanks for the reference.

  59. Roncella says:

    LCharm, and other liberal/progressives when you cross our southern borders illegally you have entered the U.S. illegally. Thats as simple as it could possibly be explained.

    Whats so difficult for some to understand about what the word illegal means ?

    The Bushes and McCain and Clintons and now Obama have not and do not want to get the wall built and security in place to stop the thousands of Mexicans from pouring across our border ” illegally “. (McCain has come around because of his close election)

    It took the Governor of Arizona to really get the issue on the front burner. She has showed more courage and concern for the citizens of Arizona than anyone has. She is exactly the kind of person I wish we had as Governor here in Washington State.

  60. Sorry P, but we’ve beat this horse to death and some folks still insist on “injecting assumptions into everything”, cutting and pasting inaccurate and, often times, untrue talking points…

  61. Cheryl, there’s no doubt there are law professors on both sides that have an opinion… on all sorts of new laws… State and Federal.
    …….
    Here’s an example of what I mentioned above P…

    “This law, in effect, legally requires a greater burden of proof from them simply on account of the way they look, and it violates the principle of racial non-discrimination.” (Thanks Cheryl)

    I saw nothing in the law or amendments to it, that support that statement. Sounds alot like an injection of assumption to me…

    The AZ law is about accosting citizens and non-citizens alike to demand “papers.” In all my many travels to France, I have never even once been approached by any authority who demanded proof of my right to be there, despite looking, talking, or acting differently

  62. More injection of assumption based on “paranoia masquerading as deep thinking”…

    “The AZ law is about accosting citizens and non-citizens alike to demand “papers.” (again…thanks Cheryl)
    .

    “In all my many travels to France, I have never even once been approached by any authority who demanded proof of my right to be there, despite looking, talking, or acting differently.”

    Q= have you ever broke the law while in France?
    Because if an illegal isn’t breaking a law in Arizona (other than being an illegal) they (nor you) will be approached by any authority demanding proof of your right to be there, despite looking, talking, or acting differently” … and it’s codified in the Arizona Immigration Law… just like the French law…

  63. L.C. You keep promising to go to Arizona and stand outside a Home Depot with a bunch of illegals and refuse to speak english to an arresting officer. I’ve seen that comment from you several times and am wondering when you are going to go through with it? Put up or shut up!

  64. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, they’ve replaced the term “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention, or arrest.” That still doesn’t really clear things up. Will officers now have to demand proof of citizenship on all vehicles when conducting a DUI checkpoint? Are they allowed to ask for it when responding to a neighbor’s complaint? What about a neighbor who calls IN a complaint — would they stand to be arrested if they didn’t have “papers” handy? If a kid comes home after school and finds the home broken into, and doesn’t know where his mom keeps their “papers,” will he be afraid to call the cops?

    Cops do a lot more than just go around arresting criminals. This law puts them in a real iffy situation as they patrol their beat and sort out complaints. But that’s okay, they won’t have to worry about their legal bills, because the law provides that those costs will be borne by their agency. Their police departments must be getting a lot of money to be footing those bills! It’ll be interesting to watch the first cases.

  65. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, the law hasn’t even been implemented yet. Or didn’t you know that?

  66. spotted1 says:

    I would strongly suggest to anyone who feels our laws are not right for citizenship to go through Customs and refuse to show paperwork. I mean, they really have no reason to check you because you aren’t doing anything wrong anyways.

    Customs officials would be happy to chat with you about your choice to enter illegally at that point.

  67. LuckyCharm says:

    Nobody’s objecting to our immigration laws or claiming that illegals should be given a pass. The objection here is the potential for even more harassment of LEGAL citizens based on police “suspicion.” Because we all know that all cops are fair-minded, unbiased, calm and reasonable at all times — right? Especially in a border state where they have so many problems with drug-runners and smugglers — right? Oh, no chance for anybody to be mistaken for an illegal and roughed up a little — that’s just fun and games, right?

  68. LuckyCharm says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:19 am
    frosty, the law hasn’t even been implemented yet. Or didn’t you know that?

    … Well well, you finally figured that out Cheryl! When did you come to realization? I’m genuinely curious because it would be of interest to conduct a brief perusal of your past comments which no doubt would place you (once again) in a contradictory position…

  69. … so Cheryl, have you broken the law while visiting France? or have you added to your strawman collection…

  70. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, I already answered that above.

    Also, and I can’t believe this isn’t obvious to you, but there is every reason to oppose the law as enacted, before implementation. But what frosty suggests would not be possible until it’s implemented. This is no contradiction.

  71. “What about a neighbor who calls IN a complaint — would they stand to be arrested if they didn’t have “papers” handy?”

    No Cheryl… and with all the questions you have it’s obvious you haven’t read the law… you keep beating the strawman … read the law for yourself.

    17 pg.s…

  72. LuckyCharm says:

    I have read the law several times, jim. Please tell me how it would protect a legal Latina if, for instance, she calls in a noise complaint on her neighbor, and said neighbor says to responding officer, “Oh her?? That nasty wetback, she ain’t even a citizen! Send her back to Mexico!”

  73. You made the allegation… read it again. The strawman is dead already…

    There’s a section that addresses false accusations… and it’s still against the law…

  74. Page 8

  75. LuckyCharm says:

    So police can act on “suspicion,” but regular citizens are supposed to be able to verify a stranger’s status before making a complaint?

    Kooky.

  76. Are you intentionally acting stupid?

  77. imjim, don’t you get the feeling that you’re kicking a dead horse? Based on L.C.’s comment, we can expect her to go to Arizona when the law takes effect and join the multitudes that will be there supported by La Raza and George Soros. Hopefully there will be some video coverage of the rabble rousers being arrested. I can’t wait to see that. Cheryl, wear something distinctive so we can see which one you are, o.k.?

  78. “Implemented” and “enacted” are synonyms, the word being groped for would be “amended”, would it not? Remember LC, the straw(man) house was the first casualty of the big bad wolf. When, not if, you go to Home Despot in AZ be sure to wear a flower in your hair and a flag with green( I do not mean Irish) so we can watch over you…Eccl.8: 11

  79. BTW, La Raza IS a racist organization ( The Race ). LC- go to Home Despot in Chiapas State, only try to arrive from Guatemala without papers for fun, K? Concerning the prez. and our border (our own house) I give you I Tim. 5: 8.

  80. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, I would honestly like you to explain why a police officer in AZ is expected to act properly on “reasonable suspicion,” but regular citizens — neighbors, customers, indirect employers — are supposed to somehow have some way to verify their complaint before bringing it to authorities.

    lars, the law has already been “enacted” by being signed. It will not be “implemented” (enforced) until July 29. What does “amended” have to do with anything? And why are you talking to me about La Raza? Did I bring up that organization, or cite or defend it in any way?

    Nobody’s talking about arriving from Guatemala or anywhere else without papers, bozo. I’m talking about American citizens, living in AZ for generations, now suddenly faced with having to carry “papers” or be thrown in jail, just because they’re speaking Spanish and may be wearing workers’ clothes.

  81. That’s what this situation needs…college professors and groupies expending mass amounts of timr snf energy to create more trouble than AZ already has.

    Which one of you is it who always likes to pretend that “we’re all in this together?”

  82. “Which one of you is it who always likes to pretend that “we’re all in this together?”

    Do you honestly not know who’s pet phrase is, “we’re all in this together,” or are you “pretending” not to know?

  83. LuckyCharm says:

    I honestly don’t know who that is, either, but I can fully imagine it being me.

    Very odd how people who champion, with everything they’ve got, one small nation’s right to exist and defend itself by whatever excessive means it deems possible, even though its territory had to be carved out and defined by foreign nations, will turn around and denounce any attempts by once-native peoples on our soil to migrate back to it.

    What if a group of foreign nations got together and said, “Mexicans held this territory until they were driven out, and they deserve to have it back again,” and drew boundaries within Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona where said Mexicans could settle and use any force necessary to defend those areas? We’d say, “You guys are high!” and wage all manner of war against them to keep it from happening. Yet that’s exactly what happened with Israel, and righties defend it as if it were their own land.

    The fact is, very few people can claim to be “the first” on any territory. Most of us have ancestors who relatively recently immigrated here. Yes, we drove the native peoples off their land — should it surprise us that they’re trying to come back?

  84. Is that what allah told you? Again with the “what if” hypothetical scenarios. Let the games begin, LC, oranges in this corner and identical apples in that corner, rrrring…

  85. Roncella says:

    LCharm, Your willing to let the U.S.A. be destroyed with millions of Mexicans and others crossing our southern borders, but the Majority of Americans are not.

    Your for open borders, your for allowing drug cartels and murderers, rapists, and all the rest to come here and get all the goodies they can, and no one better not ask them if they are a legal citizen, no sir re bob……Have you changed your medication recently or what ????

  86. LuckyCharm says:

    Ron, are you just deliberately dense?

    My comment above was admittedly a poke at the rabid pro-Israelists, and probably off-topic (although not by much — there is a correlation between the two issues). I was simply reversing the situation, asking whether people would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot.

    I have never defended drug cartels, violence, or even illegal immigration. And while you believe that it’s illegal immigration that’s destroying our country, I believe instead that it’s the steady erosion of civil rights for LEGAL citizens. That’s going to hurt us far more in the long run than our illegal population ever could.

  87. Apparently we have quite a few illegal Somalis crossing the Mexican U.S. border… too.

  88. LuckyCharm says:
    May 21, 2010 at 8:02 am
    what if you had a sign in your front yard saying…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 09:20:28 AM:
    What if YOU decided to go visit AZ…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 12:04:43 PM:
    (what) if the cops stopped you in AZ…
    And what if your E-Verify…
    What if, unbeknownst to you…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 12:43:48 PM:
    (what) if Latinos are afraid to even walk to school or…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 02:01:27 PM:
    (what) if you were a Mexican family who had fled …

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 11:29:30 PM:
    (what if) you stop to get an Egg McCoronary, and the cop in line behind you…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/27/2010 07:39:24 PM:
    (what) If you were a Mexican farmer…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 17, 2010 at 9:29 am
    (what) If a crime had just been committed in my vicinity…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 17, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    What if they don’t want to come back…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm
    (what if) imagine a high school track team practicing…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 18, 2010 at 8:57 am
    (what)If a cop responds to a vandalism complaint, say, and notices…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 21, 2010 at 8:02 am
    what if you had a sign in your front yard…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 21, 2010 at 7:58 am
    (what) If you find a line of ants across your kitchen floor…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 20, 2010 at 6:31 pm
    (what if) A police officer responds to a complaint…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 20, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    (what) If two suspects are apprehended together for some reason…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 20, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    What if, while the driver… Or what if the buyer…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 31, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    Let’s say… (what if)

    LuckyCharm says:
    June 9, 2010 at 6:27 am
    (what) If you were one of two drivers stopped…

    LuckyCharm says:
    June 13, 2010 at 12:22 am
    What if a group of foreign…

  89. Sorry I didn’t respond sooner Cheryl, I was busy over the weekend performing essential public service stuff…
    .

    LuckyCharm says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    (what) if, for instance, she calls in a noise complaint on her neighbor, and said neighbor says to responding officer, “Oh her?? That nasty wetback, she ain’t even a citizen! Send her back to Mexico!”

    .
    The complaintant’s use of derogatory racist terms shouldn’t have any impact on whether or not the person creating the noise is legal or not. If the complaintant is making a false accusation, there is legal recourse for the other neighbor take… and it’s even written into the Arizona law.

  90. LuckyCharm says:

    More red meat for the lawyers, I guess, right jim?

    So that’s a great way to strengthen communities and reduce crime — by alienating neighbors and get them suing one another?

    Besides, if a lawyer can convincingly argue that the neighbor had “reasonable suspicion,” the case would be thrown out. And the lawyer still gets paid. Perfect!

  91. No Cheryl.. you proposed the hypothetical (what if)… and you are parroting the divisionist rhetoric …. (you guys love tort laweyers… Huh?)

  92. LuckyCharm says:

    I love tort lawyers? No, apparently Gov. Brewer does. The lawsuits that are going to come out of the implementation of this law will keep them plenty busy. Remember, the law specifically states that individual law enforcement personnel cannot be held legally liable for their actions — their agency will have to pick up the tab for any legal fees, or more likely, settlements. So they’re free to go hog wild with it and not worry about getting called into court. Should be fun to watch….

  93. LC-re 5:29 (Nazi question) You intro-ed that term 6/9 8:18 and “papers” 6/9 10:13, may I invest in the IPO of your “What If” company?

  94. LOL…

  95. LuckyCharm says:

    lars, what alternative shorthand would you recommend for “proof of legal citizenship”? I’ll be glad to use it to avoid any negative connotations, but I haven’t been able to think of one.

  96. LC- See if you can discover what the federal requirement for ‘legal presence’ would involve, and if that same requirement satisfaction would be synonymous with the 10th amendment of any of the several states. BTW only a BOZO would blindly stoop to a “moral equivalency” style of argument. trans.=”What If.” “M. E.” positions are a step backward, away from clarity by violating specifics such as 1-Context, 2-Sequence, 3-Proportion and 4-Reason.

  97. The phrase “we’re all in this together” may also be a loose translation from Patrick Henry 1777 Gentlemen, if here we do not hang together now, we most certainly will hang separately later…

  98. LuckyCharm says:

    lars, can you answer a simple question? You asked that I not use the shorthand term “papers” — could you then offer one more acceptable to you without suggesting I go on a wild goose chase? Very simple, just answer.

  99. Fair enough question LC-my initial answer was to utilize the federal govt.s own definition, secondly there is not yet a state-by-state statutory requirement that IS uniform, yet. The federal enforcement failure is the reason for 1070. I also agree with you on employer enforcement: E-Verify has been blocked by rep.s of both ‘parties’. Mr. Hurtt has just been given a reward/payback career “enforcing” what he doesn’t want to “enforce”(read lip service) and I have tried calling Hilda Solis at 1(866)487-9243 to get her advice as Labor Secretary but to no avail. However, if I am stopped even for a minor traffic infraction, I must present my WDL, current reg. and “proof” of insurance however, the police (especially Kent) are lackluster if one is spanish speaking(yes I can prove it),and Doctors still ask for insurance claim forms with name, add, phone etc(papers). Aside from a # or name on my forehead/right hand, I’d like your collaboration/suggestions on more than one front…

  100. LuckyCharm says:

    lars, you object to my use of the term “papers.” Please offer me an alternative, not a wordy paragraph that doesn’t even try to answer the question. Otherwise, hold your peace when I say “papers.” Okay?

  101. TonyCrago says:

    STILL waiting for the racist teabaggers to explain to me who and how we’re going to pay to deport the 11 million alleged illegal aliens back to where they came. Who’s going to pay for that? I’ve ask the question half a dozen times here and the right wing nuts can’t even muster a pitiful answer let alone a good one. Truth is these idiots haven’t got a clue. We’d spend more to arrest, house, detain and deport the alleged illegals than we would if we just decided to give them jobs and free money. The right is racist. Nuff said.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0