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.

[big_load]

BTW, in line with the title of the thread, I'm in favor of requiring states to have citizenship status on driver's licenses. Then if someone was stopped for a vehicle violation, the officer who know immediately if they were legal or not.

Some of the 9/11 terrorists obtained licenses by bribing DMV employees, a practice that continues only somewhat abated in NJ. Bottom line: honest people have to jump through more hoops, corrupt public employees line their pockets, bad guys have flawless phony credentials.

[azbackpackr]

Bottom line: honest people have to jump through more hoops, corrupt public employees line their pockets, bad guys have flawless phony credentials.

That is sort of along the lines of "If guns are outlawed..." and you know the rest...

I wasn't going to get into this. Back to packing my backpacking gear for Wilderness of Rocks tomorrow, and hoping they don't close the entire Coronado National Forest before I get there. Heard the Pinalenos are closed...

[joebartels]

Alabama's governor on Thursday signed a tough new illegal immigration law that requires public schools to determine students' immigration status and makes it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.
The bill also allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant if they're stopped for any other reason. Alabama employers also are now required to use a federal system called E-Verify to determine if new workers are in the country legally.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201106 ... FKS00.html

[Jim]

Suspected? Knowingly? Wow, lots of vague room for rampant abuse of the law.

[big_load]

Alabama employers also are now required to use a federal system called E-Verify to determine if new workers are in the country legally.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201106 ... FKS00.html

FWIW, it is illegal to use E-Verify in that way.

From the E-Verify User Manual (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocume ... Manual.pdf):

7. Employers may not use E-Verify to discriminate against any job applicant or new hire on the basis of his or her national origin, citizenship, or immigration status.
8. Employers may not use the system to pre-screen applicants for employment.

[Al_HikesAZ]

FWIW, it is illegal to use E-Verify in that way.

8. Employers may not use the system to pre-screen applicants for employment.

After the recent SCOTUS decision in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting, I'm not sure that it is illegal. Section 8 is probably an invalid Regulation.

Under the Arizona Legal Workers Act, commonly referred to as the employer-sanctions law, a business' license can be revoked or suspended for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The law also requires Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system, called E-Verify, that validates the immigration status of new hires. . . .

"(Arizona's licensing law) falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the court in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting. "Because we conclude . . . that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not pre-empted."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/artic ... z1Onunvdrl

[edit] I may have spoken "inartfully". I agree that you cannot pre-screen "applicants". After you have "hired" an "applicant", when they are filling out their paperwork, specifically their I-9, you screen them. So they are no longer an "applicant" they are technically an "employee" - they just haven't started working as an "employee"[edit]

[big_load]

FWIW, it is illegal to use E-Verify in that way.

8. Employers may not use the system to pre-screen applicants for employment.

After the recent SCOTUS decision in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting, I'm not sure that it is illegal. Section 8 is probably an invalid Regulation.

Under the Arizona Legal Workers Act, commonly referred to as the employer-sanctions law, a business' license can be revoked or suspended for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The law also requires Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system, called E-Verify, that validates the immigration status of new hires. . . .

"(Arizona's licensing law) falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the court in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting. "Because we conclude . . . that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not pre-empted."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/artic ... z1Onunvdrl

We'll see how it all turns out, but I'm not going to bet my ability to do business on that interpretation.

[Al_HikesAZ]

We'll see how it all turns out, but I'm not going to bet my ability to do business on that interpretation.

For a New Jersey business, I agree with you. For an Arizona business, if you don't use E-verify on new hires, you could lose your right to do business in AZ. SCOTUS just decided this in Late May so it is very recent. Lawyers are watching Chamber v Whiting and speculating how that impacts SB 1070 when that law is argued.

[Jim]

Businesses aside, I'm a little concerned about the rights of people who give a ride to someone else, or who can't prove citizenship. How do you prove you didn't knowingly give an illegal a ride? What about an unlicensed passenger friend of a licensed driver who is young and is pulled over, and the cop wants to arrest the friend because he's "not from round here" and can't prove citizenship? Alabama isn't exactly the home of tolerance and togetherness. They still call outsiders Yankee in a derogatory way.

[chumley]

I don't know anything about e-verify. But what is the point of the program if it doesn't verify an applicant's legal ability to obtain a job. Is there a state where it is actually legal to hire somebody who doesn't have either a social security card or a green card right now? (I mean above the board, on the books, hire).

[Jeffshadows]

Businesses aside, I'm a little concerned about the rights of people who give a ride to someone else, or who can't prove citizenship. How do you prove you didn't knowingly give an illegal a ride? What about an unlicensed passenger friend of a licensed driver who is young and is pulled over, and the cop wants to arrest the friend because he's "not from round here" and can't prove citizenship? Alabama isn't exactly the home of tolerance and togetherness. They still call outsiders Yankee in a derogatory way.

This is the same issue that healthcare faces. We are not here to police our fellow citizens, that's what the police are for. If someone comes into the hospital and uses an alias to get services the onus should never be upon the registration clerk to perform an "Investigation" into that person and his or her background. Indeed, how is the clerk to even know anything is amiss? The same goes for someone innocently giving another person a ride.

[big_load]

I'm a little concerned about the rights of people who give a ride to someone else

I suppose that is meant to provide an easy way to prosecute the employers of day laborers. I figure by supporting this kind of legislation, people have tacitly decided to sacrifice a portion of their own rights or don't see it as a meaningful infringement. I was thinking about that last month at Sky Harbor when the TSA guy insisted on manually searching inside my underwear (as I was forced to hold up my shirt to keep my torso exposed) after I had already passed through the X-Ray machine. He didn't like the look of the tan lines on my hands (left by the straps of my trekking poles). He became very interested in my occupation and whether I preferred to wear shirts with long or short sleeves and under what conditions. He was especially interested in why I was wearing a short-sleeved shirt after obviously having worn a long-sleeved shirt while recently in the sun. At least he didn't render a loud public evaluation of my landing gear.

[chumley]

We are not here to police our fellow citizens, that's what the police are for. If someone comes into the hospital and uses an alias to get services the onus should never be upon the registration clerk to perform an "Investigation" into that person and his or her background. Indeed, how is the clerk to even know anything is amiss?

I believe anytime you walk into a bar the "registration clerk" has to perform an investigation to see if you are eligible to purchase a beverage there. This is also true of purchasing a gun.

It already happens in the healthcare industry. Visit the pharmacy ... you can't just walk in and get drugs because you want them. There's a clerk who has to verify that you are eligible for what you are seeking to get.

We can certainly discuss whether that's right or wrong, but it's hardly unprecedented.

And it's also very different from innocently giving a ride to somebody who might not be a citizen. That's a slippery slope of putting the onus on a private citizens. Very different from trained healthcare workers, bartenders, pharmacists, gun dealers, etc.

[Jeffshadows]

We are not here to police our fellow citizens, that's what the police are for. If someone comes into the hospital and uses an alias to get services the onus should never be upon the registration clerk to perform an "Investigation" into that person and his or her background. Indeed, how is the clerk to even know anything is amiss?

I believe anytime you walk into a bar the "registration clerk" has to perform an investigation to see if you are eligible to purchase a beverage there. This is also true of purchasing a gun.

It already happens in the healthcare industry. Visit the pharmacy ... you can't just walk in and get drugs because you want them. There's a clerk who has to verify that you are eligible for what you are seeking to get.

We can certainly discuss whether that's right or wrong, but it's hardly unprecedented.

And it's also very different from innocently giving a ride to somebody who might not be a citizen. That's a slippery slope of putting the onus on a private citizens. Very different from trained healthcare workers, bartenders, pharmacists, gun dealers, etc.

If you go to the pharmacy counter, say you're John Smith and you are there to pick up morphine, they have a morphine script on file for a John Smith, they will hand it to you and away you go after paying. No one will ask you for ID. You might show an insurance card if they are picking up part of the bill, but that's all.

[chumley]

I have to show my ID at the pharmacy. Might be the psuedoephedrine though... ;)

[Alston_Neal]

I have to show my ID at the pharmacy. Might be the psuedoephedrine though... ;)

Yeah most people limit themselves to a pound a week..

At the pharmacy I'm only asked to verify address. But then again the druggies aren't activly seeking "old man drugs".

[Jeffshadows]

I have to show my ID at the pharmacy. Might be the psuedoephedrine though... ;)

You have a new lab running?

[PLC92084]

@chumley
Depending on the weekly amount, you may need to have Joe change your moniker to un-Relaxopelli...

[chumley]

You have a new lab running?

Mostly just a nose running. Luckily, that season is mercifully ending.

[joebartels]

@PLC92084 yeah almost had to make an emergency board vote after he went ape pumpkin on "compromised" in the Wallow thread. Then I realized I was agreeing with something halvorsen and Macewen said in the same friggen day so I couldn't vote based on mental conditioning, which in turn altered the entire board. Something isn't right, there has been a disturbance in the force. Jim_H or Lyding have been a very bad influence on the lad or maybe it was teva