|
Arizona Immigration Law; Governor signed it into law today
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 23 2010, 02:49 PM (2,018 Views)
|
|
ivorythumper
|
Apr 27 2010, 10:34 AM
Post #101
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- JBryan
- Apr 27 2010, 10:32 AM
It is actually written into the law we are discussing that anyone who can produce a valid Arizona drivers license or state ID card shall be presumed to be in the US legally. Don't go getting all reasonable on us, JB.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Axtremus
|
Apr 27 2010, 11:17 AM
Post #102
|
- Posts:
- 35,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Apr 27 2010, 10:28 AM
- Axtremus
- Apr 27 2010, 08:32 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 10:54 PM
- Axtremus
- Apr 26 2010, 09:24 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 09:05 PM
- Axtremus
- Apr 26 2010, 05:23 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 04:25 PM
- Axtremus
- Apr 26 2010, 03:52 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 03:02 PM
- big al
- Apr 26 2010, 10:12 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 09:07 AM
- big al
- Apr 26 2010, 06:10 AM
Certainly, my driver's license wouldn't (or to my mind, shouldn't) suffice. It carries no evidence of legal residence in the US, only the state of Pennsylvania.
Big Al
Last I checked, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was part of the United States.
My point was that Pennsylvania required no evidence of citizenship or immigration status at the time I secured my Pennsylvania driver's license so it can not (or at least should not) be considered evidence of legal residence in the USA. Furthermore, there have been ongoing disputes in several states as to whether or not to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Big Al
A driver's license is certainly considered a valid form of identification for Federal purposes, such as TSA security checks, so I don't see why a State should not be entitled to the presumption of validity -- unless of course you for some other reason don't want the State to be entitled to the presumption of validity.
The whole point of the new Arizona law is to give state/local law enforcement officials the power to verify citizenship/immigration status. Driver's license from most states give no indication as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status. Get it?
Obviously you don't get it. There is a presumption that a holder of a valid government issued ID is entitled to have that ID. A simple display of a State issued driver's license should reasonably obviate any concern about "reasonable suspicion" under the Arizona Law.
No ... a state-issued ID that gives no indication as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status cannot obviate any concert about "reasonable suspicion about one's immigration status" under Arizona law.
It can for reasonable persons, such as law enforcement officers who are obligated to act in good faith under this law. I am sorry if you and Big Al don't qualify on that account.
Regardless of how much good faith and/or reason with which a law enforcement officer acts, a state-issued ID that gives no indication as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status cannot obviate any concert about "reasonable suspicion about one's immigration status" under Arizona law.
Yes it can, for reasonable people. Absence of any form of government ID can conversely raise reasonable doubt. But I already explained that to you and you don't accept that, so your repetition of your previous argument is kind of pointless. Policeman: May I see your driver's license? Person: Yes officer, it is from the State of Minnesota. Policeman: I don't believe you, you did not say "Minnesoooooota". Get out of the car.
No ... If you read the CRS congressional report, you will see that there are a bunch of states that do not have "lawful presence requirement" when it comes to the issuance of driver's license. These states issue driver's license to citizens, legal immigrants, as well as illegal immigrants/aliens alike. A driver's license from any such state gives no indication as to its holder's citizenship/immigration status. No reasonable person who has, no matter of much good faith with which he acts, can look at one of such state's driver's license and make any determination as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status.
Thanks for that link, Ax -- you've just been hoisted on your own petard.  Arizona Revised Statute 28-3153 (D) is a lawful presence statute. So anyone displaying a valid AZ driver's license to an Arizona law enforcement officer can reasonably be assumed to be a lawful resident. California has the same requirement. Big Al should rest assured the PA also has that law on the books. I am sure that Law Enforcement personnel in Arizona are trained in these matters. Again, reasonable people understand what reasonable grounds are. (I will respond to JB's post in my next post.) Not at all. It may not be AZ, PA, or CA, but the fact remains that there are still states that issue driver's license to illegal immigrants/aliens. There is no "reasonable ground" to make any determination about a person's citizenship/immigration status based on his driver's license if it is issued by any such state.
On the point about AZ Law Enforcement personnel being trained in these matters, note that there is no funding for training in the new AZ law at all. There are new rules, new requirements, new demands on law enforcement, but no money allocated to training to meet any of these new demands. I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is "reasonable" to expect and/or assume proper training of AZ law enforcement personnel in this matter given this fact.
|
|
|
| |
|
Axtremus
|
Apr 27 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #103
|
- Posts:
- 35,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
- JBryan
- Apr 27 2010, 10:32 AM
It is actually written into the law we are discussing that anyone who can produce a valid Arizona drivers license or state ID card shall be presumed to be in the US legally. That statement is true, assuming that by "state ID," you mean one issued by the state of Arizona.
The actual language of the Arizona law is as follows:
- from SB 1070
-
Source SB 1070: ... Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read: ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification ... A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION. 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. ...
Note the highlighted conditional.
It is a fact that there are state governments that issue identifications without requiring proof of legal residency in the US. As such, the new Arizona law, as written, would not presume holder of such identifications to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the US.
|
|
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Apr 27 2010, 01:28 PM
Post #104
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Axtremus
- Apr 27 2010, 11:17 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 27 2010, 10:28 AM
- Axtremus
- Apr 27 2010, 08:32 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 10:54 PM
- Axtremus
- Apr 26 2010, 09:24 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 09:05 PM
- Axtremus
- Apr 26 2010, 05:23 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 04:25 PM
- Axtremus
- Apr 26 2010, 03:52 PM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 03:02 PM
- big al
- Apr 26 2010, 10:12 AM
- ivorythumper
- Apr 26 2010, 09:07 AM
- big al
- Apr 26 2010, 06:10 AM
Certainly, my driver's license wouldn't (or to my mind, shouldn't) suffice. It carries no evidence of legal residence in the US, only the state of Pennsylvania.
Big Al
Last I checked, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was part of the United States.
My point was that Pennsylvania required no evidence of citizenship or immigration status at the time I secured my Pennsylvania driver's license so it can not (or at least should not) be considered evidence of legal residence in the USA. Furthermore, there have been ongoing disputes in several states as to whether or not to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Big Al
A driver's license is certainly considered a valid form of identification for Federal purposes, such as TSA security checks, so I don't see why a State should not be entitled to the presumption of validity -- unless of course you for some other reason don't want the State to be entitled to the presumption of validity.
The whole point of the new Arizona law is to give state/local law enforcement officials the power to verify citizenship/immigration status. Driver's license from most states give no indication as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status. Get it?
Obviously you don't get it. There is a presumption that a holder of a valid government issued ID is entitled to have that ID. A simple display of a State issued driver's license should reasonably obviate any concern about "reasonable suspicion" under the Arizona Law.
No ... a state-issued ID that gives no indication as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status cannot obviate any concert about "reasonable suspicion about one's immigration status" under Arizona law.
It can for reasonable persons, such as law enforcement officers who are obligated to act in good faith under this law. I am sorry if you and Big Al don't qualify on that account.
Regardless of how much good faith and/or reason with which a law enforcement officer acts, a state-issued ID that gives no indication as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status cannot obviate any concert about "reasonable suspicion about one's immigration status" under Arizona law.
Yes it can, for reasonable people. Absence of any form of government ID can conversely raise reasonable doubt. But I already explained that to you and you don't accept that, so your repetition of your previous argument is kind of pointless. Policeman: May I see your driver's license? Person: Yes officer, it is from the State of Minnesota. Policeman: I don't believe you, you did not say "Minnesoooooota". Get out of the car.
No ... If you read the CRS congressional report, you will see that there are a bunch of states that do not have "lawful presence requirement" when it comes to the issuance of driver's license. These states issue driver's license to citizens, legal immigrants, as well as illegal immigrants/aliens alike. A driver's license from any such state gives no indication as to its holder's citizenship/immigration status. No reasonable person who has, no matter of much good faith with which he acts, can look at one of such state's driver's license and make any determination as to the holder's citizenship/immigration status.
Thanks for that link, Ax -- you've just been hoisted on your own petard.  Arizona Revised Statute 28-3153 (D) is a lawful presence statute. So anyone displaying a valid AZ driver's license to an Arizona law enforcement officer can reasonably be assumed to be a lawful resident. California has the same requirement. Big Al should rest assured the PA also has that law on the books. I am sure that Law Enforcement personnel in Arizona are trained in these matters. Again, reasonable people understand what reasonable grounds are. (I will respond to JB's post in my next post.)
Not at all. It may not be AZ, PA, or CA, but the fact remains that there are still states that issue driver's license to illegal immigrants/aliens. There is no "reasonable ground" to make any determination about a person's citizenship/immigration status based on his driver's license if it is issued by any such state. On the point about AZ Law Enforcement personnel being trained in these matters, note that there is no funding for training in the new AZ law at all. There are new rules, new requirements, new demands on law enforcement, but no money allocated to training to meet any of these new demands. I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is "reasonable" to expect and/or assume proper training of AZ law enforcement personnel in this matter given this fact. The State of Arizona does not need to be concerned about other state jurisdictions for her laws. If States like your own are so backward that they don't require proof of legal residency, then you should lobby your own state legislature to require proof of citizenship as part of the driver's license to ensure that you are not unwittingly suspected of being an illegal alien when you travel to Arizona. Or you could lobby your city council to ensure that legal residency is a requirement for a library card, which would then be acceptable under Arizona state law.
That is the beauty of subsidiarity, and makes a lot more sense that a centralized behemoth bureaucracy that you would advocate to solve a simple problem.
But you make a logical error in claiming that even if a Mass. DL were offered, that would not be reasonable grounds for assuming legal residency, since the statute itself only kicks in if there is "reasonable suspicion" and that suspicion cannot be made on solely due to "race, color or national origin". Furthermore, there is already case law on "lawful contact", which presupposes a valid reason for the encounter in the first place. So as long as you don't break any laws during your visit to Arizona, you have nothing to worry about. 
And no additional funding is necessary. A simple call in to a State database can verify if 11-1051.B.4 applies, or the LEO can have a simple laminated pocket card with the requirements of other States on it. I understand you like to argue for more wasted tax dollars and more unwieldy centralized solutions, but there are often economical and simpler solutions to the problems you create for yourself.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Axtremus
|
Apr 27 2010, 04:03 PM
Post #105
|
- Posts:
- 35,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
-
[1] The State of Arizona does not need to be concerned about other state jurisdictions for her laws. [2] If States like your own are so backward that they don't require proof of legal residency, then you should lobby your own state legislature to require proof of citizenship as part of the driver's license to ensure that you are not unwittingly suspected of being an illegal alien when you travel to Arizona. Or you could lobby your city council to ensure that legal residency is a requirement for a library card, which would then be acceptable under Arizona state law.
[1] This is, in fact, not the case. Take this language from the new Arizona law, for example: "4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION." (See my previous post in response to JB for context.) To the extent that this Arizona law bothers to state the conditional upon which identifications issued by other non-Arizona governments may or may not be used to presume legal residency status of the holders, clearly Arizona's law is concerned about other jurisdictions.
[2] As matter of opinion, I happen to think that it is wrong headed to conflate immigration status with driver's license. The federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters, the states have jurisdiction over local traffic laws and drivers' licensures. Citizenship/immigration status and one's ability to drive are two entirely different things governed by entirely different entities. Mixing the two just does not make good sense. That's the legalistic, systemic view. On pragmatic cost/benefit considerations, I happen to hold the opinion that it's better to let illegal aliens get driver's license and buy driver's insurance, make sure that they know the traffic laws, pass driving exams, and insured. The American infrastructure is such that it is darn near impossible to survive without driving. As such, illegal aliens will drive with or without license, with or without insurance. I'd rather they drive with proper licensing and insurance.
|
|
|
| |
|
JBryan
|
Apr 27 2010, 05:04 PM
Post #106
|
- Posts:
- 28,082
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne
There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".
Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.
Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.
From The Lion in Winter.
|
| |
|
Jeff
|
Apr 27 2010, 05:19 PM
Post #107
|
- Posts:
- 1,511
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #770
- Joined:
- December 4, 2008
|
Time for a Plants vs Zombies iphone app discussion.
Edited by Jeff, Apr 27 2010, 06:15 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
John Galt
|
Apr 27 2010, 05:22 PM
Post #108
|
- Posts:
- 2,943
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #821
- Joined:
- August 31, 2009
|
Yea, my eyes kinda glazed over when I saw that n-deep nested quote.
|
|
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
|
| |