yes and that’s why a border agent seeing someone crawling over a border fence can arrest them. Not sure what crime scene you see just when looking at someone with brown skin.
Why does everyone insist on crafting this straw man, as if it compels anyone to argue against it? No one should be targeted simply for having brown skin.
No one has to carry ID. But if you are reasonably suspected of being an illegal alien, and there is nothing to dispel that suspicion, you are, well, a suspect. If a known criminal who looks like me is seen fleeing from a crime, and the cops see me behaving suspiciously near the crime scene, nothing there compels me to produce ID. But if I don’t or can’t, and nothing else can explain away the suspicion, I’m going for a ride–me, a bona fide U.S. citizen whose innocence will subsequently be established. Why is this different, or do we continue to cling to the notion that is is simply impossible for there to be reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien?
What qualities would raise such suspicion? This was quite vague in the law as well, so I think it will be where the most problems occur in its execution.
Specifically, what would raise suspicion of a person’s illegal status?
They would probably keep appealing.
I wonder what they would do about someone like, say, my uncle, a Puerto Rican, and therefore citizen at birth, who doesn’t speak English too well and therefore does what a lot of regular people do who don’t drive (he doesn’t anymore because he had a stroke): walk around without a driver’s license or any other sort of ID.
I’m dark, but I speak unaccented English, so I’m sure if I got stopped I’d get out of it. But my uncle, or my aunt, or any one of a number of my cousins who live in Puerto Rico but can fly to Arizona without a passport and who speak only minimal English?
What would a cop’s reaction be to the driver’s license if they produced that as ID, which is in Spanish?
This is crazy stuff.
What creates that suspicion? I could be suspected of being an illegal immigrant from Canada, or England, or France. Every citizen of the U.S. could be suspected of being an illegal immigrant from somewhere. What does this law require a cop to be able to articulate as his reasonable suspicion that I am such? Not a damn thing.
This law allows fishing expeditions and harassment at whim; this law effectively requires U.S. citizens to carry a passport or birth certificate at all times in public (just in case); this law casts a wide and uncontrolled net. This law is a cure worse than the disease. Frankly, I’m astonished that conservatives - a political philosophy that is based on the government leaving the people the hell alone - are not only supporting this law, but are enthusiastic about it.
Astonished.
Like I said earlier, I can’t imagine coming up with guidelines that would:
a) actually work
and
b) not be based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
I suppose one might consider “Standing outside the parking lot of a Home Depot” as reasonable doubt wrt being in this country legally. Whether that would be effective or not, I don’t know.
One point that needs to be made. In Arizona, you cannot get a driver’s license without being a legal citizen of the U.S. For the lawyers here, under what circumstances can police ask for you for ID?
Now the big question may be what would the police do if your license was from a state that doesn’t require citizenship like California.
Even in Arizona, A DRIVER’S LICENSE DOES NOT PROVE CITIZENSHIP! Legal resident aliens may acquire an Arizona driver’s license, but even then, the possession of such a license does not prove that they have not overstayed their visa.
As Frank said, that can’t be true. It’s impossible to imagine that legal permanent residents can’t get a driver’s license.
Excellent advice. Perhaps you should follow it. The bill provides for revocation of an employer’s business license after a second violation. It doesn’t say a damn thing about criminal penalties against an employer or its agents.
Nice try, though.
We may regard the matter as settled. Just today, the legendary Bill Kristol voiced his support and confidence in the Arizona bill. As Mr. Kristol has yet to be recorded as having an opinion that proved to be correct, we may safely assume he is wrong, once again.
I suppose it would be presumptuous to suggest that this thread be closed upon this news, but it is, nonetheless, the most practical response, given this development.
Heh–when I said that there could be grounds for reasonable suspicion, this is the only grounds I could come up with also. I also don’t know if it’s appropriate.
Again, and again, Stratocaster, the problem with the scenario is that it puts the burden unfairly on brown-skinned people, and that’s not okay. The burden it puts on them is to carry ID or risk arrest. That burden is itself not one we as a society are comfortable with. Combine that with the racial element (whether it’s intended or just a side-effect), and it’s odious and unacceptable.
My error. The correct erm of course is a lawful presence state
However, Yavapai County does accept an AZL as proof of citizenship.
As for Frank’s claim that an alien may be overstaying their visa, this law is directed towards those that ENTER the country illegally.
Except for the part where it’s a Class A misdemeanor to hire illegal aliens from a car.
That is, while the car is on a road.
I’m sure that will solve the problem.
What the hell is this sophistry? The law is directed at aliens who are in the country illegally. Doesn’t matter how they entered.
OK, forget that, my primary concern with this law is how it affects citizens. How will the police respond to a driver’s license from a state that does not require proof of citizenship to get a license, the aforementioned New Mexico, for instance, or the aformentioned California–both of which have long borders with Arizona–or the aforementioned Puerto Rico where the fucking licenses are in Spanish!
And now forget that too. We’ll leave aside completely the fact that you and yours are glossing over by stating that it would be an unobtrusive stop, a simple showing of one’s driver’s license and one is on one’s way: that fact being of course that the possession of a driver’s license from one of the several states, or D.C., or Guam, or Puerto Rice, or the Virgin Islands, etc., IS NOT A PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.
Wait, we were forgetting that, weren’t we?
You, me, every citizen of the United States could be suspected of being an illegal alien from another country, and could be stopped by the Arizona police while going about our lawful business, perhaps repeatedly and frequently stopped, entirely depending on the whim of a police officer. “Papers, please.” Is that really where you want our nation to go?
Where do you get that from?
Here is the full text of Arizona SB1070 (PDF). I have not yet read the entire document, but here are just a few random snippets:
[ul]
[li]p2, lines 7-10: The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. [/li][li]p2, lines 22-23: REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES[/li][li]p6, lines 14-17: IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE. [/li][/ul]etc, etc, etc.
(bolding mine).
I see no attempt do distinguish between (a) those who entered illegally, and (b) those who have overstayed their visa.
Now, since there’s a likely correlation between skin color and a/b category above (illegal entrants are likely to be darker-skinned than visa-overstayers), I anticipate all kinds of protests that the latter – who may have legally-obtained driver’s licenses – are far more likely to be (incorrectly, per the new AZ law) allowed by a policeman to go on their way – assuming that they are ever stopped in the first place.
orly?
Dunno. But I find it hard to believe that illegal aliens are invulnerable to reasonable suspicion with regard to their immigration status. But if that is truly the case, then this is a toothless law. Since only a reasonable suspicion would satisfy the need to protect individual liberties–it’s certainly the only way I would support it–then this law will die a quick death in its first dash through the constitutional gauntlet. But if such a “reasonable man” standard is both possible and adhered to, then maybe not.