« Elections Matter. Get Over It | Main | Newspaper Collapse Continues »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Greg, you wrote, "The law doesn't apply to "those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State" because they are obviously citizens."

Hum, "'obviously' citizens."

Webster's definiton of "obviously" - Easily discovered, seen, or understood; readily perceived by the eye or the intellect; plain; evident; apparent; as, an obvious meaning; an obvious remark.[1913 Webster]

"Readily perceived by the eye" as determined by what? Skin color? Age? Gender? Style of clothing?

Help me, Greg. I wasn't born or raised in the Grand Canyon state. I suspect that I might be thought of being "obviously" a citizen as I am a white male.

Oops. I joined you in being 'raised'. I forgot what my English teacher told me many years ago: "You raise chickens; you rear children."

Ron, read what Greg wrote again -- it is the fact the someone was born in AZ (not his/her appearance) than obviously makes him/her a citizen. Therefore we AZ natives (and other US citizens) do not have to carry immigration papers with us as this provision of the law applies only to non-citizens.

The problem is, what if some officer of the law has "reasonable cause" to question my citizenship and I don't have my driver's license with me (or don't have one at all)? Will my declaration (in unaccented English) be sufficient? If I reply in German or Spanish that I am a US citizen will that be accepted? Or will I be taken in for questioning and have to wait for ICE to check their passport database? What if one answers in Navajo or Hopi? Would the police even understand the reply?

As a related questions, Greg, do you or your fellow lawyer friends know if US citizens are required to carry identification at all time and/or to present same to an officer of the law upon request? I think that the answer is "no" or at least used to be. I hear that we are required by law to verbally identify ourselves to law enforcement if asked, though. Is my understanding correct? Thanks.

Politics aside, does it seem weird to anyone else that law enforcement is NOT allowed to enforce a particular law?

I smell a new Miranda case coming on, and how appropriate that again it's likely to be an Arizona case.

I think it's sad that otherwise good people would try to hijack their way into a situation (benefits of citizenship) for personal or financial benefit.

Historically, civil rights emerge long after the basics: trial by jury, habeus corpus, free speech, no search and seizure. Even illegals have those rights. But now they demand not to be merely stopped and questioned on probable cause. Now they want MORE rights that US citizens. Geez, if they were smart they'd take the 5th and go on their way.

Ken, the "obviously" you are referring to is only validated by paperwork stating and affirming that I was born and reared in the the Grand Canyon State. This means that everyone born in Arizona better carry his or her birth certificate to prove they were indeed born and reared here.

The rest of your post makes my case. Thank you.

Ron, did you know that in many states you can be detained for refusing to give an officer of the law your name or ID card when asked?

Why should latinos get a pass?

The very fact that they are here makes them criminals.

"Ron, did you know that in many states you can be detained for refusing to give an officer of the law your name or ID card when asked?."

Here is what is required - if one is lawfully detained one is required to provide the police your name. That is all. The exception is If you are operating a motor vehicle you do have to show your license.

Spliff, you wrote, "The very fact that they are here makes them criminals."

You really believe this don't you?

I agree with your critique of Mr. Dionne's quote, but I couldn't actually find the referenced editorial in the Arizona Republic. You critiqued what you said was an Arizona Republic editorial, but unfortunately, you didn't provide a link to this editorial.

Instead, you provided a link to the Dionne editorial that supposedly quoted the Arizona Republic. Mr. Dionne did have a link to a Republic editorial, but it did not contain the text that Mr. Dionne cited.

I Googled the first sentence of the quote and found a link to the Dionne editorial and your blog, but not a link to the Arizona Republic.

It's useful to provide a link to an editorial if you are going to critique it. That way, readers can see the quote in context.

Ron, define "criminal."

Psrch - will do as soon as Spliff defines, "The very fact that they are here"

I'm not Spliff, but I can take a stab at what he meant (and he can correct me if I'm wrong): "the fact that they are here, in the United States, without having gone through the customary immigration procedures."

Your turn.

Oh, and Spliff - if I DID say what you meant to say, you might want to note that the way you phrased your comments suggests that the fact they are LATINOS makes them criminals. I hope you meant what _I_ said - if you meant it the way it reads, shame on you!

Yes, if they are here without documentation, current laws say they are in violation of the same - of course, they are innocent until proven quilty.

What the heck is this, an English grammar and sentence construction seminar? Or is this just a symposium of lawyers who graduated at the bottom of their respective classes. Pay attention to the substance people, do not be sidetracked by sentence structure or try to be a walking thesaurus. The bottom line is that it does not interfere with Federal statutes, rather it defines and enhances state statutes and prohibits people like Phil Gordon from treating Phoenix as his own sanctuary city. Certainly, if we could trust the Federal government to do their job, we would not need to so thoroughly do ours, but that is not a good thing either is it. To claim that such work is Federal responsibility allows Chief Gascon to sleep at night after police officers are killed, because the Feds did not do their jobs. Of course, this could all be moot if the feds continue to examine AZ businesses as to their employee base and their legality and then demand that those businesses that do hire illegals, at least pay them the same thing they pay, uh say YOU. I guess we should not be surprised that no one read this thing, heck, neither the House or Senate in DC ever read the Health Care bill and still haven't after it became law, so who would expect anyone to read a state bill? Lets hope some one reads the "Cap & Tax" bill or all of this becomes unnecessary as you won't have any money left to hire illegals.

Many valid points have been made by others on this blog, so I don't want to rehash them. I just know that the law feels wrong. We are better than this. I think it is absolutely necessary to secure our border. No citizen, visitor, immigrant, etc... should fear for their life. We have a duty to protect our border and our people. That said, this bill does nothing to address that issue. These bills are just another effort to claim that our legislators are getting tough on illegal immigration. If they really want to get tough, pass a bill that provides a funding source for a state militia, or to cover the cost of the National Guard. Finally, allowing a citizen to sue the government to force them to enact the law is a recipe for disaster. A "conservative" has just enacted a law that will be a gift to trial lawyers, and we applaud him. We are so much better than this.

Finally, it is tiresome to read the same old comments about employers paying cash under the table. As I have argued before, the Employer Sanctions Act does nothing to address this issue. If you have a business license, you are required to pay minimum wage, withhold taxes, etc... Those without a license participate in the cash economy and that is what the bill should have focused on. I just think that we need to focus on the real proplems and not pass bills that give our state a public black eye.

You quoted: "The need to carry proper ‘papers’ falls squarely on Arizona's Latino population -- including those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State." To which you responded: The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship one of which is a Driver's License.

I'm sorry, but how is a Driver's License not "papers"? If I'm not driving a motor vehicle, then a requirement that I need to carry one for the sole purpose of proving I'm a US citizen is exactly the problem people are upset about. Also, your indication that this won't be used on primarily Hispanics (regardless of national origin) is cute, if a bit naive.

The author is being awfully nice:

"E.J. Dionne--arguably the most influential political reporter in Washington..."

Surely a leading political reporter can be expected to check his sources - maybe read the legislation himself - before writing about it? Or is it too much to expect journalistic competence.

"Later President Obama himself would blast Arizona's "irresponsible" actions."

Here, there is even less excuse. Either the President is ignorantly reacting to hearsay or he is garnering publicity by playing ignorant. Either way, shame on him.

Huh, too bad there wasn't this much scrutiny when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed. You all talk like the Bill of Rights still actually applies to anyone. Didn't King Bush II say of the constitution "It's just a g------ed piece of paper."? Welcome to the New World Order.

A driver's license may not suffice. Arizona does not recognize driver's licenses from
several states (New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii) as valid for establishing legal presence in the US. This can be a problem when applying for an AZ driver's license for people relocating from those states. The senate version of the bill is more explicit about this.

Folks from those states should carry additional documents to be on the safe side. Especially important when traveling near Phoenix where Sherriff Joe Arpaio is a bit strident about immigration law.

New Mexicans are relieved that no one is asking about needing a passport to travel to New Mexico anymore, but miffed about needing one to travel to Arizona!

Isn't it already a crime to be in this country illegally? And isn't also true that a cop has the right/ability to pull me over when ever they feel the need and proceed to ask for my identifaction? So how is this new law any different.

>> "Isn't it already a crime to be in this country illegally?" It was unlawful, but not a crime. There is a big difference between the two.

>> "And isn't also true that a cop has the right/ability to pull me over when ever they feel the need and proceed to ask for my identifaction[sic]?" Again, no. It is well established by Hiibel vs. 6th Judaical Court that the police do NOT have such a right. They can for your full and proper name, but they can't demand "papers", including a license unless you are doing an action that requires such a license, such as driving a car.

One of the rationales given for SB1070 is that it will force the Feds to act.

Be careful for what you wish!

>> "Isn't it already a crime to be in this country illegally?" It was unlawful,but not a crime." Um no it was already a crime it just wasn't enforced very well. If something is unlawful it is a crime.

@Chris: "If something is unlawful it is a crime."

**Completely** untrue. I quote Wikipedia's article on "Crime": While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions".

Being in the country illegally is not a crime. It is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony. There is no trial by jury. Immigration courts are summary courts that usually result in simple deportation. These courts and judges have absolutely NO criminal jurisdiction.

The Arizona law changes this by actually making it a class 1 misdemeanor (aggravated to a class 3 felony), requiring a real trial by jury, public defense, etc.

Bull, go and enforce the laws we have. Check the schools for who is a citizen and then check the family. Yes this is hard, but it will put a stop to some of the over spending that is going on.

send all criminals back to country of birth or where they came from( into this country ).

If they are sentenced to death then do it stop spending money on them for years.

Come legally, or don't come at all.

Oh, they are quoting WikiPedia now. Talk about an unquestionable source!

@MyShed2000: Fine. Don't like Wikipedia, try:

Litlaw: "A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor." (Illegally being in the US was not defined as either.)

Or the American Bar Association: "Crime - An act in violation of the penal laws of a state or the United States." (Immigration law and penal law do not intersect.)

"Crime" as defined by the federal government: "Crime means any offense declared to be a felony or misdemeanor by Federal or State law in the jurisdiction where the act occurs." (Again, illegal immigration was neither a felony nor misdemeanor.)

has anyone checked out California's immigration laws? Or Mexico's laws?
Before anyone talks they should read a bit more.
So many Americans seem to be sheep , and just follow the main stream without knowing anything.
Whatever ethnic group you are from , you are an American know the history of your country and stand by it

Ugh I don't wanna carry papers around me and I don't even have a license yet(Does a permit count?I'm getting one eventually.) It's not like everyone drives, they shuould give you a, "I am citizen" card. So if all of this stuff in SB 1070 existed already...what was the point of creating and signing this bill? I get that it's a "State" thing but, nationwide immigration is a problem. Also you never explained that whole, giving an illigal person a ride is wroung or influencing him or her to stay is wroung. What happend with the freedom of speech? I think signing this bill just brought bad publicity to Arizona.

The comments to this entry are closed.