Consult an attorney licensed in the state of Arizona for specific legal advice about the laws of Arizona.
So, what happened previous to this new law? What happened if you were asked for the papers you describe but couldn’t provide them? Did you just get a ticket, arrested?
You’ve been quite loquacious on that subject so far, Counselor. Why start ducking now?
Because “I’m not answering” is no longer good enough, but becomes a crime under this law? Is that it?
You weren’t asked.
Almost needless to say, but this new law does NOT say that failure to present papers when asked is a misdemeanor or crime of any kind.
I need to know if I can be arrested for not providing my name/ssn/dob, because I am seriously considering doing what I suggested in post #215 after this law takes effect.
And bringing along a hispanic friend with a mustache, tousled hair, flannel shirt, ratty jeans, etc etc.
It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
But if just keeping my mouth shut once I was approached by a police officer could land me in jail, then it’d be a pointless exercise.
As you know, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, or a lawyer at all, so I base my opinions on the interpretations of people more knowledgeable than I whose opinions I generally agree with.
But I do see on a near-daily basis what happens when even well-meaning people who don’t know what they’re doing, immigration-wise, try to interpret and enforce immigration laws, and frankly, it’s a train wreck. There are thousands of documents and combinations thereof that can document a person’s lawful immigration status or U.S. citizenship. And no, I don’t want some beat cop in Arizona with next to no training doing that job. Heck, I don’t want half the people who are in charge of doing that job doing that job - I know the regs better than they do.
I’m tired of arguing with, say, the NY DMV that my multinational manager client’s wife is here legally, because they don’t want to believe that someone without an I-797 approval notice can be in valid L2 status and is therefore entitled to a NY driver’s license (she came as a dependent on his L-1 blanket visa, so there is no approval notice with her name on it, and apparently her L-2 visa and I-94 card weren’t good enough, even though their own regs said they were). I beat my head against the wall enouguh as it is - I don’t need more people to tell how to do their jobs.
On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t complain; my firm also does civil rights class actions. Job security!
Perhaps you ought to consult an Arizona lawyer? :dubious:
No it wouldn’t. That’s called civil disobedience. It has a long and proud history in the U.S. From Henry Thoreau to MLK.
Now, why you would want to burden the police unnecessarily doesn’t make sense to me. But if you feel that strongly about it, it is a tool at your disposal.
I am not your attorney, you are not my client. This is not legal advice, and I am not licensed to practice law in Arizona.
But it appears to me that Ari. Rev. Stat. Title 13, Ch. 24-12, does require you to identify yourself if asked. Again, though, that is simply a reading of what’s written. I have not researched the issue and an Arizona attorney is the only resource to provide specific advice based on any specific factual circumstances you may find yourself in.
USCIS is the new acronym for the INS.
ICE is the acronym for the organization created by the merger of the Federal Protective Service and the investigative divisions of INS and the Customs Service.
I’m not interested in disobeying a law that says I have to give my name, rank, and serial number.
I’m interested in disobeying a law that says I have to show my papers.
The former would make the latter a moot point, in my scenario, if it is indeed the law here.
Though, come to think of it, I could just give my info to each officer who asks, and threaten to sue each passing officer who doesn’t ask. I wonder how law enforcement would react to people sitting on a couple hundred different street corners doing that every single day?
And subject to the caveats I mention above, it does appear to be the law.
Of course, i fyou are convinced the law will be abused, then why don’t you go hang out and see if it really is? Perhaps the police will simply demand your papers without asking you to identify yourself.
Well this also give them an opportnunity to ask for Obama’s proof of citizenship and when he shows them his birth certificate they can say “not good enough”
The way at least one of the proponents of the law on this thread has been describing things, merely being Hispanic in front of a Home Depot seems to be enough to create reasonable suspicion.
If a policeman exercises poor judgment and routinely pulls over young black men in automobiles and search them for drugs, is that simply more suffering of innocent citizens?
Because in this case one of the things taht you are relying on to create that suspicion is color of skin and national origin. Two things the constitution expressly forbids.
Didn’t you know that having dark skin is a crime?
No but having brown skin “and something else” (say hanging out in front of a home depot) makes it OK?
What about the unemployed white guy hanging out in front of home depot? Is he suspicious too?
Putting this canard to bed right now: there is nothing in this new law, or existing caselaw, to support the interpretation that being Hispanic in front of Home Depot is enough to create reasonable suspicion.
OK? Got it?
So if you say this again without trying to address my post, I can only assume you’re not at all interested in the actual facts.