New immigration law of Arizona
So lately there have been many reports on the news about the new immigration law in Arizona. I do not agree with the new law, and I would like to know what the Instructables community thinks about this new law.
Here are a few links to what it says-
www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
Here are a few links to what it says-
www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
JUNE 2013 Build Night - 3D Printing with 123D & Tinkercad
Instructables Build Night w/ Bare Conductive @ Noisebridge
Embed a 3D viewer in your Instructable
Maker Faire 2013 Slide Show!
Fried Contest Launches 5/13, HQ Celebrates with Fried Day Friday
MEH! :D A Build Night at Montana Ethical Hackerspace!
Got contest ideas? Want to help HQ staff?
Large Instructables Robot head made out of driftwood, check it out!
Call for pre-made parts!
The Instructables Green Design Contest is starting on Earth Day!
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
flyin2drive
Nevada Annulment
I'm surprised Arizona has the cojones to push this into the national forum, it's not like they are California. Naively, I would have expected Texas to start this.
The Village Voice in NYC recently published "Inside the Brutal World of America's Kidnapping Capital" , which was taken from a series of articles in Phoenix Arizona's newspaper. Horrifying.
Can't say whether the original articles are pro-bill ~propaganda, but the Voice publication illustrates the ugly reality of danger fellow human people face.
Solutions? Meaningful discussion is an important start.
. Any links to the text of the law (instead of some talking head's opinion about what it says)?
. I see "stop, detention or arrest." I see "where reasonable suspicion exists." But no "without probable cause."
That is exactly the same as not sending aid to the flood victims of Pakistan on the grounds that "Pakistanis support Al Qaeda".
Just last week an obese woman killed her two children! We should sterilize all fat ladies, because obviously they're all baby killers.
You really have no concept of just how absurd, let alone ignornantly hateful, your argument is, do you?
But you did! On Aug 23, 2010 12:53 PM, you wrote,
That statement is what started this whole discussion. Either you yourself are making a racist judgement, or you're saying that all Arizona police officers are (and should be) racist.
Judging a person because of their membership in a particular national, ethnic, or racial group is racist. Just because you don't consider yourself racist doesn't mean that you\r statements won't lead other people to conclude that you are.
The original language of the bill allowed police to illegally (violation of due process) ask someone for identification under any and all circumstances. The amendments passed in the wake of the international recognition of that illegality limit those inquiries to when an individual has already been detained for suspicion of some other illegal activity.
Your example is actually out of line. Unless the officer actually observes the person soliciting, they have no right to detain them. Sure, they can go and say hello or suggest that they move on, but they cannot exercise anything involved in detention (for example, asking for ID).
You're right. You didn't say it was illegal. What you said (implied) was that it should be perfectly okay for police to stop someone just because they are dark skinned.
Presumably, you also support the Torrance (L.A.) police doing the same. After all, in L.A., if you see a car full of African-American men, a cops first thought is that they're all gang members.
Then please clarify exactly what you meant when you wrote (Aug 23, 2010. 12:53 PM):
As read, you are implying that is perfectly fine for a police officer to stop a vehicle containing Mexican (or actually, just Mexican-looking) people, even if that vehicle is being driven perfectly legally.
If you were implying something else, then you should clarify it.
Pulling someone over for speeding is precisely the "stop and detain" under which asking for ID is legal.
It is not legal for a police officer to stop you and require identification if there is no probable cause that you are engaged in illegal activity. Walking while black or brown does not constitute probable cause.
The law as amended is formally legal and constitutional (in my opinion), as it codifies at the state level what is already federal law.
The legislative record is what courts look to when determining the "intent" of a law, when a law's constitutionality is questioned. The legislative record is always what the rest of us should look to when trying to understand "why" any law has been passed, especially a law which doesn't actually (as amended) say anything which wasn't already in the law to begin with.
The legislative record, which includes the original unamended version, the statements of Arizona legislators, the governor, and law enforcement officials, make it very clear that the law is intended to target Mexican-looking individuals, regardless of their behaviour, in an effort to identify those Mexican-looking individuals who are also in the state illegally.
That intent, and the clear and publicly announced plans by several state law enforcement officially to target anyone who "looks like they might be illegal", is demonstrably racist, and is extremely likely to have a detrimental effect on actual law enforcement and crime-reduction activities.
. As with the investigation of all crimes, officers have some discretion as to what is suspicious. A speeding car with sagging back springs on a car that is close to the border is suspicious.
. An Hispanic walking down the sidewalk, minding his/her own business, is not suspicious - and I see no one but the fearmongers suggesting otherwise.
> OK
> "I see no one but the fearmongers suggesting otherwise."
I quibble your use of the term "fearmonger". Remembering that I am a non-lawyer Brit discussing US law, if there's one thing I have seen, it is that, if a law can be abused, it will be abused, whether by those enforcing it, or those meant to be controlled by it.
If those controlling the law enforcers decide that there are too many foreigners on their patch, then the law enforcers will be instructed to find reasons to be suspicious.
UK stop-and-search laws are currently being criticised because the majority of people subjected to the process are from coloured minorities. The excuse used is that a greater proportion of crime is committed by members of those minorities. The evidence for this statement? The majority of people who are found to have committed an offence following a routine stop-and-search are from coloured minorities.
It's an abuse of the law, but it is legal. Not right, not moral, but still legal.
On the other hand, if an individual is found to be in the UK illegally, they can only be deported if they can be formally identified. All an illegal immigrant has to do to avoid deportation is to destroy any legitimate identification they possess. Forged passports, driving licenses etc cannot be used as formal identification, even if the details on them are correct.
Destroy (or post home) your valid ID and you cannot be deported. Again, an abuse of the law.
L
Even gender is often hard to get a handle on.
L
L
L
. The police have to have some discretion in order to perform their duties. Police worldwide are already given as much, if not more, discretion. If they don't use it properly, they are punished.
. So far, I've seen zero evidence of a conspiracy to violate anyone's rights.
. There is nothing new in the bill. It only restates what the authorities are supposed to be doing already. It would be like your town passing a law that said the police have to check driver's license every time they pull someone over for a violation.
The abuses you mention are illegal. When I said "abuse the law", I meant find loopholes - follow the word of the law, but not the spirit, to achieve an end that was not intended by the author of the law. Loopholes.
The UK stop-and-search law was not meant to generate profiling data, but it does.
The passport loophole was meant to protect people from being accidentally deported to the wrong country, or for the wrong crimes.
. Any abuse that is possible is already possible. Any loopholes that can be used are already in place. The law grants no new powers or responsibilities. The law really does nothing more than heighten awareness of the situation and scare some ppl who want to read more into it than there is.
will this never get abused? i can't say that, but the law isn't giving anyone free reign to just walk up to any hispanic looking person and ask for ID
I'm looking for something actually =], can't seem to find something though....
. No matter what your country of origin, if you are here legally, then I welcome you with open arms to the Land Of Opportunity. I'd appreciate it if you would learn to speak English; if I move to where you come from, I will learn your language.
. If you are here illegally, you go to jail and then get deported. Sorry, but we can only absorb so many ppl without it over-taxing our resources and ruining it for everyone.
. Great! My English is not perfect, so I don't expect anyone else's to be, but all should be able to do business with the government (including schooling) in English and follow the directions (in English) of police and other emergency workers.
. What you speak/read at home, church, &c is none of my business.
> My argument is that people think we come here to make a disaster when we really don't.
. I feel certain that the vast majority of immigrants (both legal and illegal) do not intend to cause any harm. But many end up placing unnecessary strains on "the system" if just because of their numbers.
> How do we ruin it for everyone?
. In controlled numbers, immigration is a great benefit to all involved. It's a win-win situation. A symbiotic relationship.
. Uncontrolled growth is cancer. :(
> We work just as hard as anyone else, ...
. pfffftttt! From what I've seen, most Hispanics (not just Mexicans) are very hard-working ppl and many are willing to do jobs that natives think are too nasty or beneath them. Almost reverse racism there, huh? :)
> and we don't get the resources that people who are here legally do.
. And most illegals don't pay the taxes that pay for those resources. While, from what I have read, a considerable number of illegals are taking advantage of social programs.
I'm not saying that all of us are hard workers. I know that a great amount of immigrants come and get in trouble. They are lazy and do take advantage of social programs but just because of them we all get categorized as lazy and useless. That's what I was going to say, a lot of immigrants do jobs that others won't do. Like being dishwashers at a restaurant (my moms current job), house-keeping (also my moms current job), construction (my dad), roofing (my dad), taxi-drivers, etc; and those are jobs that are necessary.
We do pay for those resources, we don't pay as much as others would, but we do pay our share of them.
The point I'm trying to reach is that I don't like how this law gives police officers the right to pull-over or try to arrest anyone that looks like they are here illegally. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I just want to know what others think of the law, that's all. =]
. I, like most Americans, welcome all legal immigrants. We are a country of immigrants. Our diverse population is part of what makes us great.
.
. The police have always had the right to detain someone if they believe that person is doing something illegal. Some legislators have tried to impede their ability to do so. As far as I can tell, the new law just re-affirms what is already there, ie, nothing new, just a lot of talking heads telling you the sky is falling.
granted i know the US immigration process is flawed, and it can sometimes take 15 years to be a full citizen, but that's the process we have at the moment and it should be followed. GENERALLY anyone willing to work and pay taxes can get temporary work visas and the like to stay here LEGALLY.
. And I find it rather ludicrous to shout RACISM!! at the same country that:
- So many ppl seem to be willing to literally die to move to
- Has allowed so many ppl to immigrate already
- Has shown a commitment to maintain its liberal immigration policy
- So freely gives of its money and labor to help those in trouble the world over
- &c, &c, &c, ad nauseum
. Are there bigots in the US? Of course there are - just like every other region on Earth that contains humans. Is the US a racist country? Pffffttt! Quite the contrary.Now we have cartoons involved in this debate. O_o
*exits without expressing opinion*
The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws. The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?
One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer. For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
. Hopefully we can agree that the first paragraph is just common sense. Whether you or I agree with the whole body of law or not, it is really not a police officer's job to decide which laws are good and which are bad. His/her job is to enforce the law as promulgated by the legislators and interpreted by the courts..
. I have to prove I have a driver's license (and insurance) if a police officer asks for it. In order for me to leave or enter the country, I have to present a passport or visa (are visas still used?). In order to open a bank account, I have to provide a Social Security Number. I have to prove who I am on almost a weekly basis.
. Do I like the Big Brother atmosphere? No, but, unfortunately, it seems to be a part of modern life. For everybody, regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin.
. Should a person be stopped and IDd for having black hair and dark skin? Of course not! This is America - the place where everyone wants to immigrate. If a person (of any race) is causing trouble and the police are already there? Go ahead and check.
. When I went to MX (way back in the early '70s), the first thing MXn authorities did when I landed was ask for my papers. ;)
When you enter a country, it is normal and acceptable procedure for the customs and immigration authorities there (as here) to verify that you are who you say, and that you are entering the country legally. In North America, this is usually pro forma, but it need not be.
You wrote, "I have to prove I have a driver's license (and insurance) if a police officer asks for it." No, actually, you do not. Unless the officer has probable cause to stop and question you, you do not have to say or do anything at all. If you are actively driving a motor vehicle, and the officer stops you for violating the law, then yes, of course you have to demonstrate that you're legally entitled to be driving. If you are walking down the street, doing nothing but listening to your iPod, then the officer is completely out of bounds to stop you and ask to "see your papers."
. OK. Poor example.
> If you are walking down the street, doing nothing but listening to your iPod, then the officer is completely out of bounds to stop you and ask to "see your papers."
. Absolutely, 100% true. But, other than the fearmongers, nobody is talking about doing that.
From the text of the bill:
"B. 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 where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."
. Isn't that what cops are supposed to do, anyway? If you're breaking the law, aren't they supposed to try and figure it out?
. Should a person be stopped for looking Hispanic? Of course not! If "reasonable suspicion exists"? Of course! Just as with an other person.
. If we have an influx of illegal Canadians here in S AR, I expect officials to at least perk up when they hear someone end a sentence with "eh?"
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.
(The all caps is in the original PDF). Notice "lawful contact." That's what's wrong with the bill -- a police officer can come up to a person on the street, and based on "reasonable suspicion" (not probable cause) can ask for their papers. An open invitation to racial profiling.
And the attempt to pretty up the law by amending it (i.e., what you quoted in purple) doesn't change that invitation. Remember that courts are expected to look not only at the letter of a law, but at the "legislative intent" behind it. Given the original text, the legislative intent is pretty clear.