# Judge blocks Arizona "show me your papers" law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345 "2010-07-28T18:58:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/21 "2010-07-28T21:52:12Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > > > Have liberals swung so far that their position is now that there should be no such thing as citizenship? > > In my recently-announced position as spokesman for all liberals, I must say: I’d be fine with that, actually. As per the subsequent memo appointing me as **TimeWinder’s** immediate superior in the global liberal heirarchy, I am authorized to clarify that under this world order the US would retain the right to subject resident noncitizens to the tax structure. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/22 "2010-07-28T22:10:33Z")
My father-inl-aw is from Mexico, but is now a US citizen. What kind of documentation must he carry around with him? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/23 "2010-07-28T22:11:32Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Simple question from a Canadian. I happen to know that our local police can arrest drunk drivers and charge them for driving beyond .08 which I know contravenes a federal statute. > > Are you telling me that local law enforcement in the States are prohibited from enforcing federal law ? There is no federal law requring that people be stopped on the street and asked to prove legal residence, nor is there any law that they be asked to prove it during a routine stop for other reasons. Arizona wouldn’t have been enforcing a federal law, they would be imposing news laws which they have no jurisdiction to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/24 "2010-07-28T22:20:43Z")
> [@bullrun](#): > > The Arizona Law dealling with illegals was copied almost word for word from the federal law. The Feds refuse to enforce the law. One of their excuses was that they did not have the manpower. Arizona said ..‘good..then we will help you’. The feds wanted no part of such help. The federal government under obama simply refuses to help American citizens in Arizona defend their state and themselves from an onslaught from another nation. An onslaught that is costing them tons of money and the very lives of their citizens due to a great influx of illegal criminals. > Dems think they have won a great victory. They are celebrating the defeat of the law by an activist judge. They do not know that this is another nail in their proverbial political coffins. A lot of people are angry over this judge’s ruling. We all have seen the socialism and anti-Americanism of the obama regime. When Washing D.C. will allly’s itself with illegal alien invaders over American citizens; when Washington sides with law breakers and ignores the suffering and needs of it’s own citizens; then the citizens of this nation will must change Washington in Novermber or ignore it. > This aciton by a liberal judge has added more votes against the democrats in Novermber. People will not forget the plight of Arizona. Washington is hastening the time when people are simply going to quit obeying the dictates of left leaning activist judges. Soon…people and state governments will simply ignore the dictates of Washington D.C. IN most instances…the rules and laws coming out of Washington D.C. are unconstitutional anyway. Let them send their troops. Frankly…when the American people finally get enough…this nation does not have enough troops to enforce their ridiculousness. > Washington D.C. is run by internationalists. Obama is an internationalists. What does he care of the problems or the borders the nation? > Yes…he and the dems think the won a great victory today. THey have simply added more fuel to the fire that will eventually virtually burn down their rule. These right wing complaint algorithms are getting pretty elaborate. This one almost looks like real speech. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/25 "2010-07-28T22:28:22Z")
My Green Card acceptance letter says, “When you receive your card you must carry it with you at all times if you are 18 or older. It is the law.” Anyone know the penalty for failing to carry it with me? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/26 "2010-07-28T22:28:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is? Oh, that’s easy. If someone’s got white skin instead of brownish, or blond hair, then they’re almost certainly immigrants (or at least mostly descended from immigrants). Non-immigrants in this country all have brownish skin and black hair. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/27 "2010-07-28T22:34:38Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > My Green Card acceptance letter says, “When you receive your card you must carry it with you at all times if you are 18 or older. It is the law.” > > Anyone know the penalty for failing to carry it with me? A $100 fine. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/28 "2010-07-28T22:42:30Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Simple question from a Canadian. I happen to know that our local police can arrest drunk drivers and charge them for driving beyond .08 which I know contravenes a federal statute. > > Are you telling me that local law enforcement in the States are prohibited from enforcing federal law ? Unlike Canada, in which the vast majority of criminal statutes are enacted federally, in the States, the individual states are the source of a great deal of criminal statutes. U.S. federal criminal statutes occupy more of a niche field of special federal issues that deal with exclusively federal or inter-state issues, such as crimes involving federal employees or facilities, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or issues involving the national border. Since many of the crimes set forth by federal statutes do not have corresponding crimes under a given state’s criminal laws and the federal government has not expressly granted a particular law enforcement agency in a given state to enforce certain federal laws, then enforcing federal laws is usually outside of a local law enforcement officer’s scope of jurisdiction. This is assuming there is no corresponding state law possibly giving rise for a local law enforcement officer to enforce or there is no agreement between the feds and the local law enforcement agency that allows them to enforce certain federal laws. [QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is? [/QUOTE] Given that reasonable, articulable suspicion is used by law enforcement officers to justify _Terry_ stops or vehicle stops on a daily basis, the fact that there is no overarching criteria that could cover all situations for what could constitute a reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien in the US unlawfully is not really determinative. Reasonable suspicion in the the SB 1070 context is whatever a prosecutor, with the testimony of one or more police officers, argues and what a judge will ultimately decide. That is one of the lesser problems of SB 1070. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/29 "2010-07-28T22:48:22Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > My father-inl-aw is from Mexico, but is now a US citizen. What kind of documentation must he carry around with him? All he has to do is say he is a US citizen, and there is nothing the police can do, unless they already have evidence that he is not a citizen. They cannot detain people just because they look Mexican, or speak Spanish, or dress like an immigrant. Any US citizen who was detained should sue the hell out of the law enforcement body that detained them without being able to articulate what reasonable suspicion existed to justify the detention. If this law is ever allowed to go into effect, it should be renamed the Attorney Full Employment Act, because a cottage industry of lawyers will bloom overnight, ready to sue any police department who detains a US citizen without reasonable suspicion. It will cost local municipalities a fortune to defend these lawsuits. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/30 "2010-07-28T23:06:38Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > My Green Card acceptance letter says, “When you receive your card you must carry it with you at all times if you are 18 or older. It is the law.” > > Anyone know the penalty for failing to carry it with me? According to the internet: > [@The Internet](#): > > Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/31 "2010-07-28T23:13:54Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Otherwise legal residents would be unable to take baths or showers, to go swimming, would have to make love while holding their green cards in their hands or mouths… I understand that last part is a staple of “barely legal” porn. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/32 "2010-07-28T23:22:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I understand that last part is a staple of “barely legal” porn. And then there’s the “barely illegal” porn, with Mexican actors saying, “Green cards? We don’t need no stinking green cards!”, while they fornicate with two or more women. ---
**Author:** ![G-SE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f0a364/32.png) [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/33 "2010-07-28T23:22:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is? Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers. It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/34 "2010-07-28T23:24:43Z")
> [@G-SE](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is? > > Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers. > > It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about. Right, and after you make a legal stop you ask the brown people for their papers. Nothing to get outraged about there at all right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/35 "2010-07-28T23:42:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Wilbo523](#): > > > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > > > The difference here is Arizona troopers could stop you merely to ask for documentation. If you merely “look” like an immigrant the police could harass you demanding your documents. > > > > Wrong. Go read the Arizona law. > > > [@](#): > > > > ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS > > > > 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. > > > > SOURCE: [http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf](http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf) (PDF) Despite the many threads on this issue, you don’t recall that this provision was modified before the law went into effect, and “lawful contact” was stricken? Really? That completely escaped your attention? You know you’re quoting the text of the bill in the Arizona Senate anyway, right? You’re not actuallylinking to the Arizona laws as enacted, right? I mean… seriously. How many threads have I spent rebutting this kind of lying crap? ---
**Author:** ![G-SE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f0a364/32.png) [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/36 "2010-07-28T23:44:53Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > > [@G-SE](#): > > > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > > > Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is? > > > > Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers. > > > > It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about. > > Right, and after you make a legal stop you ask the brown people for their papers. Nothing to get outraged about there at all right? In my opinion, no. But that’s not the point I was trying to make. I’m disputing the whole notion that you can be stopped just to show papers, which is just not true. No matter how many times people try to scream, cry, yell the opposite, it doesn’t make it true. On a side note to the whole “papers” thing though, I have lived as a foreigner in both France and Belgium, where I was required by law to have my identification on me. And in Belgium especially because of the neighborhood I lived, I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id. Was it inconvenient? Yes. The end of the world? No. Oh the horrors! ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/37 "2010-07-28T23:54:30Z")
> [@G-SE](#): > > On a side note to the whole “papers” thing though, I have lived as a foreigner in both France and Belgium, where I was required by law to have my identification on me. And in Belgium especially because of the neighborhood I lived, I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id. Was it inconvenient? Yes. The end of the world? No. Oh the horrors! NIce anecdote. Does it apply to the US? Only in the sense that “I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id.” So, you were stopped for what–violating a law? Or just because you looked different? See the connection yet? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/38 "2010-07-28T23:54:37Z")
> [@G-SE](#): > > On a side note to the whole “papers” thing though, I have lived as a foreigner in both France and Belgium, where I was required by law to have my identification on me. And in Belgium especially because of the neighborhood I lived, I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id. Was it inconvenient? Yes. The end of the world? No. Oh the horrors! I think that if people believed that this wasn’t going to be used as a tool to specifically harass the brown people, there’d be a lot less complaint about it. Which is to say, if _everyone_ had to carry papers and produce them regularly, the lefties would murmur less. (The righties would murmer more, though.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/39 "2010-07-28T23:58:28Z")
> [@G-SE](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Do tell what “reasonable suspicion” is? > > Nice how you just skip over the whole “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” part. That means a legal stop has to be made FIRST. And currently, formerly, and in the future, it is not legal in AZ to stop someone because of the color of their skin or just to check their papers. > > It’s funny to see such outrage by the left by a law that they know nothing about. There was a valid objection to this phrase, however. A “lawful contact” is made between the police and Emma when Emma reports that her home was burglarized, and the police respond to investigate. For this reason, the phrase was removed by the passaage of HB 2162, and replaced with: > [@](#): > > For any lawful stop, detention or arrest 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 in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state… This change was referred to in SDMB threads approximately 8,876,621 times. Now make that 8,876,622. Not that liberals let facts get in the way of good ol’ outrage. ---
**Author:** ![G-SE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f0a364/32.png) [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345/40 "2010-07-29T00:12:48Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > > [@G-SE](#): > > > > On a side note to the whole “papers” thing though, I have lived as a foreigner in both France and Belgium, where I was required by law to have my identification on me. And in Belgium especially because of the neighborhood I lived, I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id. Was it inconvenient? Yes. The end of the world? No. Oh the horrors! > > NIce anecdote. Does it apply to the US? Only in the sense that “I was stopped at least once a month just to show my id.” So, you were stopped for what–violating a law? Or just because you looked different? See the connection yet? Yes, I was actually stopped because I looked different. I happened to live in a predominantly North African neighborhood, which was also well known for having a few parks where hashish dealers hung out. I have no doubt I was stopped because I was a white guy walking around such a neighborhood. I guess I should be suing the Belgian government for racial profiling… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-blocks-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law/548345.md?page=3)