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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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” is not some new-fangled term, whipped together so we can arrest Mexicans. It is a well-established legal standard: