Arizona passes tough illegal immigration law | Reuters I read the NYT on it. I read several articles and they all stressed the police are required to stop people who they "reasonably expect’ of being illegals.
I just read the 16 page bill and I don’t see it.
In the abstract, not particularly. Does this law require that the cop can only do this if the person is stopped for some other infraction (eg, speeding in this case)?
However, the only way to implement this law, in my mind, w/o regard to race, ethnicity, or national origin would be for the cops to do this every time they stopped someone for “x” crime (eg, speeding in this case) or “y” list of crimes, predetermined to be random and/or non-racially slanted.
Yes it does. That’s exactly what it authorizes. It mandates that citizens be forced to prove their legal residency on the spot or be arrested.
They would be required to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain your immigration status, if it can be done practicably.
So in that case, how might it play out?
They can approach you and ask you for your name. I don’t know what Arizona’s rule is, but in Nevada, a person detained by police for reasonable suspicion can be required to identify himself. So let’s assume that a similar law exists already in Arizona. Wearing a T-shirt that says “Illegal Alien,” is sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, and so if you refuse to identify yourself, the police may arrest you for that failure.
But let’s say you provide your name, date of birth, and social security number. In that case, the police can check, more or less instantly, that the name and DOB matches the name and DOB associated with the social security number, and whether the SSN is issued to a citizen or to a legal resident. If it comes back clean, the encounter is over. If it does not, then there’s probable cause to believe you have violated the law by providing false information to a police officer and you may be arrested for that offense.
If you want to provide other particulars, more details in the what-happens-if department, I’ll walk through them with you.
I’ve seen this scenario play out in immigration court bunches of times, in suppression hearings. At that time, there was a large Hispanic influx into some of the NW suburbs around here, and some of the longer-term residents were not happy about it. The result was the police stopping tons of people essentially for Driving While Hispanic. The judge would ask the cop “so, why did you stop this person? Was he driving erratically or doing anything wrong?”
“He fit the profile of a known gang member.”
“What is this profile?”
“Young male Hispanic.”
“You can’t provide any more detail than that? That’s a description that fits an awful lot of people, many of whom, if not most, are in the U.S. legally.”
“I’m sorry, I can’t tell you any more, because it would compromise ongoing law enforcement activity.”
Did the cops get away with it? Every single time that I saw.
So pardon me if I’m skeptical about how the application of this law is going to work out. Do you seriously think, no matter what kind of instructions law enforcement is given, that it’s not going to result in a ton of arrests for Driving While Hispanic (or the on-foot analogue)? My Mexican-American co-workers, all of them born here, already deal with that kind of crap on a near-daily basis.
Eva Luna, former Court Interpreter, Office of the Immigration Judge (1991 - 1994)
And so now you’ve learned a little about relying on media reports.
IOW, “Show us your papers” becomes a reality.
Yup.
Those last two words struck a cord. WTF are we becoming?
So, is the right to remain silent only granted after arrest? How do I find out if I am required by law to identify myself in Arizona? And if I’m not, is this law toothless to anyone who knows that?
Sure. And why not? It takes less then five seconds to ask the question. why wouldn’t they add it as part of their standard repertoire?
I do pardon you. But it seems to me that your objection is to how you think the law will be applied, not that it is on its face unconstitutional.
-
Who says there is a duty?
-
Check people who are already under arrest for something else.
Many laws are toothless to people who know them.
Not precisely on point with respect to immigration, but HIGHLY relevant to laws being toothless when people know their rights: read this.
The right to remain silent exists at all times, but it doesn’t extend to failing to provide your name, SSN, and date of birth. Those are not testimonial, since they are not, themselves, incriminatory. See Hiibel v. Nevada.
I tend to agree with the interpretation that securing borders, including immigration enforcement, is (and should be) a function of the federal government. I skimmed the bill, and most of it duplicates Federal immigration law.
FYI, there is already movement for the American Immigration Lawyers Association to move its annual conference (which is normally attended by thousands of people) out of Arizona.
That would be the best way to do it. But you didn’t answer my first question. Does this law allow the police to ask about immigration status if they have not already have suspicion you have committed some other crime?
So how do I find out if I am required to provide my name, SSN, and DOB in Arizona?
So I guess that means that if you were an Arizona legislator, you would have voted against it.
But at least two federal circuits have decided that local law enforcement authorities can investigate and enforce federal law – that they have an inherent authority to do so. So, apart from your feeling that immigration enforcement should be the province of the feds alone, is there some other reason that Arizona’s attempt is illegal?
What you need are your papers demonstrating legal residence. If you don’t present them on demand, that’s a misdemeanor. A crime.
This law does not. As discussed above, though, it’s long been the rule that police may choose to ask anyone about anything. This law neither adds to nor detracts from that power. As long as the citizen is free to disregard the inquiry and go about his business, such questions are perfectly legal – in every state in the union.
So the police can – as they always could – walk up to anyone and ask, “Are you a U.S. citizen? Or a legal resident?” based on no suspicion at all.