New Prove-You're-A-Citizen law

[JimmyLyding]

When Governor Brewer signs this into law, can anyone see some unintended consequences? For those who don't know, this law will allow law enforcement officials to require anyone they come into contact with to prove that they are legally allowed to be in this country whether as a citizen or guest. For the record a valid driver's license is NOT considered proof-of-citizenship. Does this mean that those of us who appear as if we might be foreign have to carry around our birth certificates?
I'm not that worried about myself because I'm a 6'4" white dude, but then I remember reading about 80-year-old nuns being strip-searched by airport security.
As for hiking, I always carry my wallet with me because I'd rather risk losing it on the trail than having it stolen out of my car. But I'm not about to carry my birth certificate around. Anyhoo, this law will probably be struck down by the courts.

[JimmyLyding]

I'm sure glad that the City of Phoenix spent about a billion dollars re-making the convention center. Adios conventions!

[Ckzona]

I dont want to pick sides but i somewhat like this law and would believe in it even more if it was tweaked a little.

[chumley]

Here's an interesting opinion in favor of the law. It dispels some of the exaggerations that are currently swirling about.

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
By: BYRON YORK
WashingtonExaminer.com
April 26, 2010

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible-- an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency--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…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

[Jim]

Anyone who complains about the quality Arizona roads have never driven in another state which has freeze/thaw cycles.

Ah, but anyone who makes that statement is forgetting the this state has freeze/thaw cycles, and the moisture necessary to destroy roads. In fact, we probably have some of the most consistent difference between our diurnal temperatures so that roads are subjected to a great variety of temperatures. Why, take 2007 for instance, that January Flagstaff recorded a low of negative 15 (-15) Fahrenheit, and that July it was 96 degrees Fahrenheit, so we had 111 degrees of difference. Every year I have lived here, even the "mild" ones, have had temps below zero after saturating rains or snows have fallen, and they were then followed by mild days. That is why the roads are so bad on I-40 and 17, and also around Flagstaff. So, complaining about people who complain about roads in Arizona demonstrates that you might not have gotten out of the cushy valley temperatures recently enough to remember that the cruel conditions of other places do exist in state. Last July they repaved (in a cheap half assed manner) the road I live off of. It was a good thing because the winters of 2008 and 2009 had absolutely destroyed parts of it. Massive pots holes, rough, broken pavement, and conditions in February of 2008 that were so bad they broken a ladies axle when she drove over them.

Also, I think we normally have 8 months with freeze thaw cycles, but I'm not 100% sure. Most years I lived here had a freeze in mid to late September, and then the last one was in late May, or early June. 2009 had a record long growing season, something like April 23 to October 14. I'm not sure, though. Either way, even though the roads and soil tend to be dry in May and September, we do have a majority of the year subjected to freezes and thaws.

[Jeffshadows]

"Exaggerations" are in the eye of the beholder. ;)

[chumley]

I agree Jeff. I posted that because it's a different view of most of what I've been hearing, and I think the best way to understand an issue is to understand all the viewpoints.

[dysfunction]

I agree that it is. By far, however, my biggest problem with this current legislation is that Arizona doesn't have the funding to keep the programs it has going. We're looking at closing jails and schools, and even making those closed schools into ersatz jails, yet somehow we're expected to have funds available additional enforcement of federal laws (for what seems to be entirely political grandstanding). Every other concern I have is really secondary to be honest.

[Jeffshadows]

They just voted to close my son's elementary school. Congrats TUSD, you just converted another parent over to the charter system. I'll also help vote down any appropriation bill they try to pass now and in the future. They just made me "Part of the problem."

[dysfunction]

They just voted to close my son's elementary school. Congrats TUSD, you just converted another parent over to the charter system. I'll also help vote down any appropriation bill they try to pass now and in the future. They just made me "Part of the problem."

Yes, my oldest graduates this year (and TUSD was a joke, even before this year).. my younger two are in GATE, they've been threatening to close the GATE elementary (which btw is in a title 1 'inner city' school). Even at that school, as a parent, I'm completely frustrated with the administration. That being said, voting down appropriation bills (when needed, which well now it is) is completely counter productive. All it will do is increase crime rates and usage of entitlement programs in the future. Combine that with an additional 13mil loss in federal matching funds if this one fails the states education system will be completely hosed. That all being said, we've already decided that as soon as my wife's done with her degree we'll be taking our highly-educated, technologically savvy selves and getting out of Arizona. As much as I love the geology of the state, it's simply not worth it to further risk our children's future for it.

Good luck with the charter schools, we have some friends that have been in them from a teaching perspective... and talking to them about it pretty much ruled them out for us.

[Jeffshadows]

My sister taught at one and I used to be a huge critic. TUSD just converted me. I used to give them the benefit of the doubt and vote yes on their appropriations; this is my new mindset: "They mismanage any money we give them now, why give them more??"

[dysfunction]

well, if the prop fails.. you might as well simply close ALL the schools in AZ (including charter). It's a shame, this state has very, VERY, systematically sought to destroy it's own future in the past couple years.

btw, I'm not saying that tossing money at the problem is a solution.. but further gutting of the budget is certainly detrimental, probably to the point of completely rendering the system dysfunctional.

[Jeffshadows]

Possibly so. I consider my children's education MY responsibility. They will learn a few things at school but most of it will take place at night, or whenever, with me and my wife. We will make sure they don't have the issues she and I had when we hit higher education. The most important aspect of school for a kid is the social aspect. Closing a neighborhood school and forcing parents to bus their kids to schools positively loaded with troublemakers far from their homes is a really smart move, no? It really helps to ensure that TUSD will have a good cross-section of society, rather than just the kids whose parents have no other option!!

[dysfunction]

well, I'd go parochial.. but with 2 kids it'd be twice the cost of my wifes Eller tuition

TUSD is indeed broken, I agree. This is apparent even in the GATE program, which should be the 'showcase' so to speak. Sad, really and utterly sad. The problem is the parents, and voters, don't put a priority on education. Those that do, are such a small minority that it's pushing against the current.

[Jeffshadows]

Can't do parochial...

I agree completely with your latter statement. So many major issues in our society could be prevented by common sense and basic logic...

[Jim]

Uh Oh, we have a new forum. I see this potentially going south. No pun intended.

[chumley]

What's next? The "Singles & Dating" forum? :budrose:

[Jim]

What's next? The "Singles & Dating" forum? :budrose:

Why did that flower open? Shouldn't it wither and become bitter?

[PLC92084]

Why did that flower open? Shouldn't it wither and become bitter?

It would have, however... HAZ breathes LIFE into everything... If ONLY AZ bureaucrats frequented these pages... ALL would be well !!

(Getting nauseous writing this... It's hard work sucking up to management... I'm shooting for Member of the Month for May...)

[azbackpackr]

What does the Member of the Month get? A new kokopelli from the head kookoopelli?

[azbackpackr]

I'm in a really good mood. I just finished off one of my classes. Two finals down, two to go!