# Arizona is out of control **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 24, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171 "2010-04-24T01:17:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Stooge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Stooge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stooge)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/361 "2010-05-14T21:17:39Z")
Sorry, **descamisado** , I didn’t quote the message I was replying to… > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Why not just make it mandatory for everyone that’s a legal resident to have either a driver’s license or a walking ID card that you can only obtain through proof of citizenship? Ergo, no carrying around “papers” and such. If you draw suspicion of being an illegal, you produce the card, you are not detained. My point being that what **FoieGrasIsEvil** was suggesting is already the law. Their not “papers”, but Resident Alien cards. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/362 "2010-05-14T21:21:26Z")
Why is this thread reminding me of that old Cheech and Chong routine off one of their records? “Sign ze papers, old man” “I cannot sign ze papers!” “Why not?” “Because you have broken both of my arms!” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/363 "2010-05-14T21:48:59Z")
> [@Stooge](#): > > My point being that what **FoieGrasIsEvil** was suggesting is already the law. Their not “papers”, but Resident Alien cards. But what if the person is already a citizen, and thus under no legal requirement to carry proof of residency? That’s the problem with the law. It’s clearly aimed at Mexicans, or Hispanics in general, but there are plenty of people in the United States, especially in border states like Arizona, that “look” and “sound” Mexican, but who are also US citizens. A guy who goes to my gym has been here for 16 years, and has been a citizen for more than 5 years. He still has a strong Mexican accent, and while he speaks English fine for casual conversation, his grammar and usage make clear that it’s a second language for him. This isn’t an unusual situation around here. Should he, as a citizen, have to carry a passport or some other proof of citizenship just to walk around in public? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/364 "2010-05-14T22:18:38Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But what if the person is already a citizen, and thus under no legal requirement to carry proof of residency? > > That’s the problem with the law. It’s clearly aimed at Mexicans, or Hispanics in general, but there are plenty of people in the United States, especially in border states like Arizona, that “look” and “sound” Mexican, but who are also US citizens. > > A guy who goes to my gym has been here for 16 years, and has been a citizen for more than 5 years. He still has a strong Mexican accent, and while he speaks English fine for casual conversation, his grammar and usage make clear that it’s a second language for him. This isn’t an unusual situation around here. > > Should he, as a citizen, have to carry a passport or some other proof of citizenship just to walk around in public? No. He should have normal ID on him like a driver’s license just like everyone else, and if he gets pulled over or whatever, that should be enough for any cop. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/365 "2010-05-14T22:37:35Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > No. He should have normal ID on him like a driver’s license just like everyone else, and if he gets pulled over or whatever, that should be enough for any cop. But the “lawful contact” standard of the law in question is not restricted to car stops. Is an American citizen required to take his or her drivers license when they walk down the street to buy a quart of milk? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/366 "2010-05-14T23:46:21Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But the “lawful contact” standard of the law in question is not restricted to car stops. > > Is an American citizen required to take his or her drivers license when they walk down the street to buy a quart of milk? Of course not. In the event an officer suspects someone on foot of being illegal in such a case, the officer has to be willing to follow the person home (or give them a lift) so said person can produce ID rather than arrest them outright. That’s even if the cop is willing to take it that far, which they shouldn’t unless there are other circumstances that make the person in question suspicious. Heck, you don’t get arrested for driving without a license if you have one and forgot it. Give the cop your truthful information, he’ll run it and find out if there’s anything up with you or not. At least, that’s they way it _should_ work. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/367 "2010-05-14T23:49:48Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > At least, that’s they way it _should_ work. Please bookmark this for future reference. Oh, and, do you have an answer you’re willing to share here: > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Really I think that college is a better place for classes like that rather than high schools, anyway. > [@descamisado](#): > > Do you take **Palo Verde** ’s source at face value? He/she mentioned “a paper” but didn’t give a name. Can you give me to these other things that you’ve read so that I can learn more in a well-rounded way? Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/368 "2010-05-15T00:19:08Z")
> [@descamisado](#): > > Please bookmark this for future reference. > > Oh, and, do you have an answer you’re willing to share here: I do agree that the concept of officers detaining people for “looking Mexican” is problematic and despite proper ID, ripe for abuse. That’s why I said “should” as opposed to “is”. I don’t know the solution to that problem, which is why I have the opinion I do: I agree that something needs to be done WRT illegal immigration laws, but I’m not sure what the best approach is. I’d lean towards punishing employers for not doing their diligence WRT hiring people without proper paperwork. I’m an employer, and I would never think of forging anything on an I-9 form. Its a Homeland Security document! As for the second part, I don’t have a good cite. Blogs, things I’ve read, etc. Nothing I would dare to officiously point to on here. But it is my opinion that very specific cultural studies are best taught at the collegiate level rather than HS. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/369 "2010-05-15T00:48:58Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > No. He should have normal ID on him like a driver’s license just like everyone else, and if he gets pulled over or whatever, that should be enough for any cop. It isn’t enough for the law. The law recognizes as valid ids, > [@](#): > > 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. Since not all states, most notably Arizona’s neighbor New Mexico, require proof of legal presence in order to get a driver’s license, licenses from those states wouldn’t fit the requirement. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/370 "2010-05-15T14:12:11Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > A guy who goes to my gym has been here for 16 years, and has been a citizen for more than 5 years. He still has a strong Mexican accent, and while he speaks English fine for casual conversation, his grammar and usage make clear that it’s a second language for him. This isn’t an unusual situation around here. > > Should he, as a citizen, have to carry a passport or some other proof of citizenship just to walk around in public? Nope. Fortunate for him, the law wouldn’t require that. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/371 "2010-05-15T14:15:29Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It isn’t enough for the law. The law recognizes as valid ids, > > Since not all states, most notably Arizona’s neighbor New Mexico, require proof of legal presence in order to get a driver’s license, licenses from those states wouldn’t fit the requirement. The law does not require anyone to carry papers to prove their citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/372 "2010-05-15T14:22:59Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Nope. Fortunate for him, the law wouldn’t require that. Which doesn’t mean he won’t get arrested anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/373 "2010-05-15T14:53:53Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Which doesn’t mean he won’t get arrested anyway. And? No law currently on the books prevents a cop from acting inappropriately. Do we eliminate all laws that a cop could possibly misapply? 'Cause that would be all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/374 "2010-05-15T15:08:12Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > And? No law currently on the books prevents a cop from acting inappropriately. Do we eliminate all laws that a cop could possibly misapply? 'Cause that would be all of them. No, but why make it any easier than it already is for cops to misbehave? What exactly do you think this law is going to accomplish? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/375 "2010-05-15T15:27:36Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > No, but why make it any easier than it already is for cops to misbehave? What exactly do you think this law is going to accomplish? How does this make it easier for the cops to misbehave, when it dictates only (by definition) lawful activity? Unless you mean it in the sense that any new law is one more chance fore the law to be misapplied. In which case, again, that would apply to any new law. And I don’t find the “but no law that a cop could abuse should be permitted” argument particularly compelling. I don’t know what the law will accomplish. It may well end up being a toothless piece of nonsense, or it could be an effective enforcement tool. On such matters, I defer to the local legislative body operating as the voice of the people it serves, so long as their choices don’t run afoul of any constitutional restrictions. None of my business, IOW. I am simply reacting to the oft-repeated notions that the law, as written, requires certain things when it does not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/376 "2010-05-15T15:51:57Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t know what the law will accomplish. It may well end up being a toothless piece of nonsense, or it could be an effective enforcement tool. On such matters, I defer to the local legislative body operating as the voice of the people it serves, so long as their choices don’t run afoul of any constitutional restrictions. None of my business, IOW. I am simply reacting to the oft-repeated notions that the law, as written, requires certain things when it does not. This point still sounds to me like the old chestnut of telling the affectad that it is actually raining when they are pissing on them. As it is affecting my business, I have to tell you that the new punitive laws and rules made without nothing being done to reform immigration at the same time (A huge promise made even by the conservative politicians before) demonstrates where the makers and enforcers of the rules in Arizona are coming from. And when one takes into consideration who is enforcing the rules… Well, the top sheriff is telling everybody that any abuse reported will be cheerfully ignored. It is really silly to give them the benefit of the doubt, the history gives me enough information to dismiss the idea that this law will not lead to even more abuses to Hispanics as has been taking place. > **[Arizona immigration law requires police to see a crime before checking legal...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/apr/28/john-huppenthal/arizona-immigration-law-requires-police-see-crime-/)** > > Does Arizona's tough new immigration law, set to take effect in 90 days, protect the innocent from police abuses? Genera > [@](#): > > There are other reasons to believe that someone could be questioned on their immigration status without a police officer actually suspecting a crime. Jennifer Chacon, law professor at the University of California (Irvine), raises concerns about the phrase “lawful contact.” > > “Lawful contact can occur in many instances when there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime,” she said. “A consensual encounter, such as asking a police officer for directions, reporting a crime to a police officer, or being a victim of a crime or a witness and being questioned by a police officer, is a ‘lawful encounter.’ Also lawful are some stops premised on absolutely no individualized reasonable suspicion – think about DUI checkpoints where everyone is stopped even if there is no individualized suspicion for the stop. The bill is clear that so long as the initial encounter is lawful, a police officer can then ascertain my legal status upon suspicion that I am undocumented. So Huppenthal is wrong if he maintains that only those suspected of criminal activity can be questioned regarding status. Under the plain language of the law, any time the police engage in a lawful encounter, that is enough to trigger the inquiry into status upon reasonable suspicion.” > > And some of the potential crimes that could lead to questioning involve seemingly innocuous actions. > > In an effort to curb day-laborer gathering points – the ad-hoc spots where illegal immigrants have often offered themselves as informal laborers – the law makes it unlawful “for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.” It also is now “unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work [or] solicit work in a public place.” And how does the law define “solicit”? As a “verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed.” > > So, presumably, anyone getting into a car, or making a gesture or a nod in a public place, could fall under suspicion of violating these laws – which in turn could open the door to an individual being questioned about their immigration status. > > None of this means that law enforcement officers will fully exercise these powers – or that judges will let them. But most legal experts we asked felt that the law opened the door to police questioning of individuals who are not specifically suspected of committing a crime. > > Perhaps the ambiguities of the law will one day be settled in the courts. But we think that a close reading of the statute and the views of the experts we contacted allow us to draw some conclusions. > > Huppenthal’s position – that the police must suspect that something illegal is being committed before asking someone for proof of legal status – is not correct. The law says the police officer just needs "reasonable suspicion’’ that the person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States. The police are prohibited from using a profile based solely on racial or ethnic factors, but that standard can be sidestepped. In addition, some seemingly innocuous behaviors like getting in a car or making a gesture or nodding could be seen by a law officer as “reasonable suspicion” of the newly enacted prohibition against seeking work while in the United States illegally. > > The passage in the law citing racial profiling does provide some protection, as does the difficulty of defining a profile for illegal immigrants that could pass legal muster, but the law leaves open several possibilities for police questioning individuals without seeing or suspecting a specific crime. So we rate Huppenthal’s statement False. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/377 "2010-05-15T16:09:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Nope. Fortunate for him, the law wouldn’t require that. I’m well aware of that. If you’d actually followed the conversation, you’d understand that i was asking a rhetorical question regarding the carrying of identification, in response to a specific point made by another poster. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/378 "2010-05-15T17:22:13Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The law does not require anyone to carry papers to prove their citizenship. Then how do you read this? > [@](#): > > For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. 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. Because it seems to me that it says, "If you’re arrested for something, we suspect you’re not legally here and you don’t have one of the IDs listed above, we’re not going to let you go before we call the feds. What’s your take on the subject? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/379 "2010-05-15T18:04:38Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. 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. Are all the states entities, and do they all require proof of citizenship for state issued ID? I’d hate to end up in the slammer next time I’m in Arizona just because an Indiana (eg) driver’s license isn’t good enough for the local coppers. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171/380 "2010-05-15T18:09:34Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Then how do you read this? \ > > Because it seems to me that it says, "If you’re arrested for something, we suspect you’re not legally here and you don’t have one of the IDs listed above, we’re not going to let you go before we call the feds. > > What’s your take on the subject? If a reasonable suspicion exists, then the officer is directed to act on that reasonable suspicion. The law indicates that this suspicion can be dispelled by virtue of one of those IDs. If anything, that aspect of the law makes it much less subjective; it protects the suspect by providing a specific means for eliminating the suspicion, the officer’s judgment notwithstanding. In the absence of those IDs, some other means to investigate must be undertaken. But if no reasonable suspicion exists, then none of what follows is relevant, not the IDs, not any other action. Your own cite says so–“where reasonable suspicion exists.” That cannot in any reasonable way be interpreted to mean “all citizens must provide proof of citizenship or be arrested or detained.” If reasonable suspicion exists that I committed a burglary, for example, then law enforcement officers are compelled to hold me until that suspicion can be explored. That is not the same as saying that all citizens must be prepared to provide an alibi for his whereabouts. “[Reasonable suspicion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion)” is not some new-fangled term, whipped together so we can arrest Mexicans. It is a well-established legal standard: > [@](#): > > Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the “reasonable person” or “reasonable officer” standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arizona-is-out-of-control/537171.md?page=20)