JapanForum.com - New Law in the U.S. State: Arizona

JapanForum.com (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/)

- General Discussion (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)

- - New Law in the U.S. State: Arizona (https://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/31707-new-law-u-s-state-arizona.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintjm (Post 810870)

You are incorrect in your assumption. Nice try though.
In your example you haven't been stopped for a violation of a crime.
Suspicion can only be assumed after lawfully being stopped for a crime.

You are correct, I take back that example. It seems the original senate version used the word "contact", while the house bill changed it to "stop, detention or arrest". Much better. Reference: Text of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law - Part 1 | KEYTLaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbradfor (Post 810875)

Thank you for clarifying and the new link.

From part 5 of the bill: Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 5 | KEYTLaw

Quote:

1-501. Eligibility for federal public benefits; documentation; violation; classification; citizen suits; attorney fees; definition

A. Notwithstanding any other state law and to the extent permitted by federal law, any natural person who applies for a federal public benefit that is administered by this state or a political subdivision of this state and that requires participants to be citizens of the United States, legal residents of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States shall submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the federal public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:

1. An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2. A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3. A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4. A United States passport.
5. A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6. An I-94 form with a photograph.
7. A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8. A United States certificate of naturalization.
9. A United States certificate of citizenship.
10. A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11. A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.

Here's how I see it. Either they are going to need to ask EVERYONE for proof when applying for such benefits (or some random subset), or they are going to engage in (racial) profiling. I don't see any other option. clintjm, do you? Can you explain to me a third option of how this would be enforced?

This to me is the issue with the law. I think that most people in Arizona that are in favor of this law thinks it applies to "those other people". I think they if they really applied it "fairly" -- that is, ask everyone, I think support will drop quickly.

Quote:

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.

AFAIK, MN, the state in which I live, does not require proof of legal presence to get a driver's license, and I know many other states, such as CA does not as well.

This means that if I go to AZ, I need to bring my passport.

That's a bit weird / scary.

Now one may argue that this is because MN (and CA) has it wrong, and AZ is doing things correctly. But it is, to me, an interesting side effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbradfor (Post 810877)

From part 5 of the bill: Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 5 | KEYTLaw

Here's how I see it. Either they are going to need to ask EVERYONE for proof when applying for such benefits (or some random subset), or they are going to engage in (racial) profiling. I don't see any other option. clintjm, do you? Can you explain to me a third option of how this would be enforced?

This to me is the issue with the law. I think that most people in Arizona that are in favor of this law thinks it applies to "those other people". I think they if they really applied it "fairly" -- that is, ask everyone, I think support will drop quickly.

Yep, you got it. I have no problem them asking everyone and neither should be the state. If put to task, the state should not resist this notion. Your third option is narrowed down nicely. As it stands now though, it doesn't prevent state officials from asking everyone. Requirement of asking would "everyone" would perhaps make this iron clad politically correct.

Yes I also agree that most people in Arizona may feel that as well. But with 70% in support of the bill, that says a lot. What percentage of Arizona is Hispanic, Latino? I'm sure many would not resist the "everyone" amendment with the state of emergency they are in.

It is a matter of survival in Arizona and many places like Arizona.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbradfor (Post 810878)

As an aside, one potential effect of this, and I know they had this in mind when drafting the law, is that it to some extent "forces" other states to change their laws as well.

From the first part: Text of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law - Part 1 | KEYTLaw, section B

"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. "

AFAIK, MN, the state in which I live, does not require proof of legal presence to get a driver's license, and I know many other states, such as CA does not as well.This means that if I go to AZ, I need to bring my passport.
That's a bit weird / scary.Now one may argue that this is because MN (and CA) has it wrong, and AZ is doing things correctly. But it is, to me, an interesting side effect.

It also says on point #4 for say any US state or local government issued ID.
That would include your MN DL or ID in Arizona.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintjm (Post 810879)

Yep, you got it. I have no problem them asking everyone and neither should be the state. If put to task, the state should not resist this notion.

To my surprise, I think we agree on this. If they ask everyone, always, to show ID, then I have no racial issues with this law. [How effective it will be, given how easy it is to forge state IDs, is another question.]

However, I seriously question whether the people in Arizona will really think it is worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintjm (Post 810880)

It also says on point #4 for say any US state or local government issued ID.
That would include your MN DL or ID in Arizona.

NO, you are wrong. Read it again, I even put it in bold for you, yet you "somehow" missed it. Point 4 starts "If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance". That is exactly my point, MN (and CA) does not require proof of legal presence in the US, hence does not meet their criteria. I don't see any other way of reading this statue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbradfor (Post 810882)

"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. "

It clearly states in that sentence that if you don't have any of items 1-3, AZ state issued ID, <now the part you bolded:> or before the AZ state ID is issued, you should have any *state* or federal issued ID, which includes your state non-vehicle ID, or DL. Everyone in the US should have this in any state.

I'm not sure what picture you are painting here. You are in Arizona out of state and you don't have any state or government issued ID on you? Yeah, I guess you would have to have a passport or green card if that is all you got. No one travels out of state without simple ID. What is your point?

You are misreading it. Here, "the entity" refers to the government entity that issued the identification. For me, it would be the state of MN. So they are staying they will accept a different government ID, IF that government checks for legal presence when issuing that ID. If that (non AZ) government entity does NOT check for legal presence, then they won't accept it.