Patterico's Pontifications

7/28/2010

Judge Enjoins Arizona Immigration Provisions

Filed under: Immigration,Law — DRJ @ 11:08 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the four most controversial provisions of Arizona’s new immigration law:

“A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to enforce federal immigration policy.

Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrests.”

Fox News has posted the court’s opinion.

I haven’t read the opinion so I can’t speak to its legal impact, but this strikes me as a decision that will politically energize conservatives between now and November. In addition, because this decision defangs the Arizona law, it makes it less likely there will be incidents that will give the Obama Administration grounds to sue Arizona for racial discrimination. Bottom line: Liberals won today but at what cost?

MORE: I’m adding the 4 provisions the Judge enjoined below the prompt.

From page 4 of the court’s opinion:

“Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).”

— DRJ

190 Responses to “Judge Enjoins Arizona Immigration Provisions”

  1. i was only able to skim part of the ruling, but it looked like there were specific wording issues with some of the sections, which means that the AZ legislature could pass emergency amendments addressing said issues and move forward that way.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  2. “In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.”

    Using the words “struck down” is misleading in the Fox story when as the second sentence above indicates, all the Judge is doing is deferring a decision on whether to allow the sections to be implemented until the court rules.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  3. “…”There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),” Bolton ruled. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.””

    What’s amusing about the latter part is that Bolton is saying legal resident aliens are burdened because they no longer can run around without their papers.

    Of course, they do not have the legal right to run around without their papers, since they are required to do so under Federal law. There is no burden on them in this way.

    You could have every single law on the books overruled if ‘they could arrest an innocent person’ was a valid objection to a law. People who drive cars without a license get arrested either way, and citizens or legal aliens can resort to the justice system if they are falsely charged.

    But the best part of my quote is that the sloppy writing implies that the Federal Government has the exclusive authority to impose distinct, unusual and extraordinary burdens on people. Well, that’s exactly what it’s doing by abandoning huge sectors of territory to criminals and refusing to enforce the laws.

    The reason she’s so general about this is that there is a conflict between federal policy and Arizona law, but not a conflict with federal law. No matter how far the federal policy veers from the law, are states supposed to conform? That seems like an unworkable system to me.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  4. The Libs won their Pearl Harbor today. Midway, Normandy, to follow. Soon. The bear is now fully awake.

    Ed from SFV (cd955f)

  5. I updated the post to include the 4 provisions the Court enjoined.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  6. “will not be able to REQUIRE police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest”

    My question….. can the police officers VOLUNTARILY act to determine the immigration status?

    Hangtown Bob (2cb356)

  7. Dustin: I object to the law because any *citizen* who *might be mistaken for an immigrant* is burdened by requiring them to run around with their papers.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  8. I agree that this will keep the pot boiling and add to the pressure on Congress this fall. Thank God Obama is this inept. If he were Roosevelt, we could have a 10 year Depression.

    Mike K (0ef8c3)

  9. Do you have to have your drivers license on your person when driving a car, aphrael?

    JD (d55760)

  10. Bob, that’s a good question. Another is why this kind of injunction isn’t made against sanctuary cities who require officers to not inquire, and require noncooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

    The actual laws on the book: that’s not the law according to many. We must look to the ‘policy’ of non-enforcement, even if it’s at odds with the law and oath of office.

    We have to pretend that it’s an additional burden to require something that is already required by federal law, because the democrats need to engineer a dependent electorate, imported from Mexico.

    The cost is enormous, but it’s not being paid by our leaders until the voters ensure the federal laws are enforced by either party’s beltway leaders.

    It’s not like Arizona can just ignore the injunction (without making things worse), but they have a right to protect their citizens despite this contradictory nonsense from federal leaders who are playing politics instead of enforcing laws.

    Obama plays that game of constantly renewing the drilling ban despite injunctions. Arizona should do something similar, amending the law, making it active, and doing so again as needed.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  11. You’re such a wacist, JD.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  12. Dustin: I object to the law because any *citizen* who *might be mistaken for an immigrant* is burdened by requiring them to run around with their papers.

    Comment by aphrael

    OK… who has been burdened? Where is the ripe and valid complaint from this person?

    I reject that. States can compel you to identify yourself if they actually suspect you have committed a crime. Illegal immigration is a crime. If you are suspected of illegally immigrating, you should be compelled to identify yourself.

    Do you really object to this burden? It’s not much of a dang burden to carry a driver’s license. I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that’s a burden… it’s just a sophist’s argument. This burden is trivially light, and no sane person argues there isn’t an extremely compelling state interest.

    Besides, the law is explicit in requiring only those who are already legally by federal law required to carry papers. You say that’s a burden… they don’t have the legal right not to do this.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. Obambi really does not want to talk about issuing drivers licenses, since he was an advocate of issuing them to illegals previously.

    JD (d55760)

  14. I think this ‘ID burden’ is the perfect example of why we need to wait until a complaint arises. It’s not like this was an unsolvable harm to demand ID, and it’s certainly not like innocent people were going to be deported.

    They could have waited for this burden to show up. I admit, there are cases where you shouldn’t have to show any ID to the police. But if you’re suspected of a crime like illegal immigration, you are not that case. If you’re driving a car, you are not that case. If you are required by federal law to have documentation, you are not that case. And of course, the real problem: if you are an illegal immigration, you are not that case. You have no right, as an illegal, to be here at all, or complain about this sort of burden at all.

    We’re talking about a burden of nearly nothing, against a need to protect people from their state being overrun by violent thugs.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. Dustin: anyone who might be mistaken for an immigrant is effectively required to carry ID at all times – whether driving or not.

    I *frequently* don’t carry ID when I’m not driving. I would consider it a burden to be required to – it effectively requires me to wear clothes with pockets or carry a bag to contain the ID, or hold it in my hand at all times. Any of these can be inconvenient or undesired under the correct circumstances.

    Of course, I wouldn’t be burdened in Arizona, because I would never be mistaken for an immigrant. But I have native-born friends who look different than I do who *would* be burdened by it.

    ————

    I’m not a libertarian, although I flirted with it in my youth, as many do. But I don’t think that it’s reasonable for the state to require that anyone within its borders carry proof of identification at all times – and I think that the existence of social and political pressure calling for such a thing indicates a serious sickness in our society: a deep-seated distrust or fear of strangers manifesting itself as a requirement that they be able, at all times, to prove themselves trustworthy.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  16. I don’t get it. It’s as if even the judge herself hasn’t read the law. In her ruling she says:

    “Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.”

    But the law states:

    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.

    First, she says the law REQUIRES officials to determine the immigration status of EVERY person arrested. The law does NOT say that AT ALL! It doesn’t require anything for every person arrested, or even require anything at all – period. It merely says a law enforcement official CAN check, at their discretion, a law breaker’s immigration status, and, on top of that, ONLY if reasonable suspicion exists. Her interpretation of this law, which is what she based her decision on, isn’t even close to what the law says. Her interpretation mirrors what the law’s opponents have been propagandizing.

    eddieb (b26ebb)

  17. No, that is not the case, aphrael. This law never allowed people to be stopped on the sidewalk in suspicion of being illegal.

    JD (d55760)

  18. JD: but it means that anyone stopped for a legitimate purpose can be required to prove their immigration status.

    Here’s an example from my actual life.

    I was walking home from a friend’s house at 3am one morning, a dozen years aog or so. It was a three mile walk.

    About two miles into it, two police officers stop me and ask me some questions. Basic questions: what am I doing, where am I going, etc. They didn’t ask me for ID – I wouldn’t have carried any, since I didn’t have a drivers’ license at the time and only used my state ID card when interacting with a bank. It turned out they had stopped me because someone’s home had been burgled near where I was walking, and they were looking for the culprit; my demeanor and the answers I gave to the questions convinced them that I was innocuous.

    Now, imagine, same circumstances, except that the officers suspect me of being an illegal alien. So they ask for ID; I can’t produce it. So they detain me, and take me to the station, where I’m required to prove that I’m a citizen.

    I consider this to be a significant step on the road to a police state.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. But I don’t think that it’s reasonable for the state to require that anyone within its borders carry proof of identification at all times – and I think that the existence of social and political pressure calling for such a thing indicates a serious sickness in our society: a deep-seated distrust or fear of strangers manifesting itself as a requirement that they be able, at all times, to prove themselves trustworthy.

    I think your fears are completely unfounded. A deep seated sickness? Give me a break. It sounds like you’re the one with the deep seated mistrust of the people around you. We aren’t little prenazis, and we wouldn’t be if this law were left in place.

    JD’s right, it’s not like people were going to be stopped for walking fown the sidewalk. I was referring to the concept that the police can demand identification if they suspect a crime. It’s not like this is a perfect solution, since people often don’t have ID on them, but they deal with it well enough.

    Do I want people to have their ID demanded from them, just for walking down the road while Mexican? Absolutely not, and of course, only a deeply uninformed person would suggest that’s what this law was doing.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.

    Does this ruling also apply to background checks for firearms? Or is it still legal to restrict the liberty [to bear arms] while one’s status is checked?

    Vatar (3899d0)

  21. “But I don’t think that it’s reasonable for the state to require that anyone within its borders carry proof of identification at all times”

    aphrael – Since that is not what the law says, you are probably justified in feeling a requirement to carry ID around at all times is unreasonable. Personally, I always carry ID. I believe it has, however, been federal law since the 1940s at least for legal immigrants and foreign visitors to carry identification at all times, so there is nothing new about the Arizona law with respect to legal non-citizens.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  22. Can I just say something? What is it about “papers”. I have to show my damned “papers” practically every single day ad nauseum, to access my bank, to write a check, to check out a book from the public library, to check into a hotel, & if I get pulled over for a driving infraction. It is a completely false argument that legals or illegals are somehow discriminated against if they have to have proof of status. So does the average, native-born American, not to mention all of the immigrants who came here LEGALLY. Furthermore, do you think any other country on the planet has the lax border rules the open-border a-holes are screaming about?

    caston (6d984e)

  23. Now, imagine, same circumstances, except that the officers suspect me of being an illegal alien. So they ask for ID; I can’t produce it. So they detain me, and take me to the station, where I’m required to prove that I’m a citizen.

    Do you really think that’s what the Arizona law would have been like, or is this just an example of what you don’t want to see?

    The cops weren’t investigating you for a crime. They were suspicious (and they had good reason to be, even though I’ve been in your shoes, that isn’t the worst thing for a cop to check out).

    I also think, speaking generally, since you are not talking about Arizona’s law anyway, that it wouldn’t be all that bad to require people to have ID, or register a biometric the police could check out if they think you’re an illegal citizen. Your principle is nice… I don’t want to be annoyed by cops any more than you do, but it’s not an absolute. We’re talking about a major problem that can be weighed against the burden of having an ID on me (which I again note, isn’t the Arizona law).

    If you already are required to carry the ID by the federal government, there is no burden for Arizona mirroring that language except that the federal law has been repealed unconstitutionally.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. Leftists need to fully consider the seriousness of disenfranchising voters by judicial fiat….and what alternatives this leaves a free people who want to see laws enforced.

    Kevin Stafford (ff3afb)

  25. It sounds like you’re the one with the deep seated mistrust of the people around you

    Arizona has passed a law which, in effect, requires people to prove themselves innocent when a policeman suspects them.

    The only way I can explain that to myself is that the legislature of the state of Arizona, and the people who voted for them, believe it’s appropriate to require people to prove their innocence rather than requiring the state to prove guilt.

    The only reason I can come up with for believing that presuming guilt is appropriate is distrust … and I believe that distrust is seriously unhealthy.

    And, for all that I think caston overstates the degree to which people are required to present papers, I think the requirement of identifying and proving yourself in advance has spread much further than it had twenty years ago … suggesting that we’re all sort of becoming used to the idea that we’re distrusted until we prove ourselves trustworthy.

    That’s a pretty depressing thought, in my mind.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  26. exactly, caston. This burden is basically nothing.

    The fears are based on lies about how the American people would be something like Nazi monsters. It’s not based on the idea that it’s actually very burdensome to carry ID. Would Aphrael have been burdened to carry an ID with him on that walk at 3am? It doesn’t sound like a burden to me so much as a principle of civil liberties (that should be weighed against government interests). It’s very easy to carry ID. it’s required by federal law for those Arizona required it of, anyway.

    It’s amusing how I’m going to be required to tell the government what I do about my medical needs, with no privacy concerns from democrat, but it’s a tremendous burden to require people to carry an ID in a situation where we’re abandoning territory to human smugglers.

    Fact is, if the police are investigating you for a crime they think you have committed, of course they can require ID. If the police was looking for someone at 3am that night and thought Aphrael might be him, he could have been arrested if he refused to ID himself. Aphrael’s police state has already existed for a very long time, then.

    It’s not like this is a perfect system… people are falsely arrested all the time and that’s a shame. We do the best we can to balance these things out, and people have recourse to the court system. I think Aphrael’s fears of a sick society are simply unfair. Arizona’s not trying to hurt brown people or ethnically cleanse or become a police state.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. So she enjoined a federal law requirement that aliens carry ID at all times?

    Nice work if you can get it, I guess.

    Frank Drebbin (8096f2)

  28. Of course the cops weren’t investigating me for a crime; they were checking me out because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. They would have been remiss in their duty not to check me out, and I have no problem with what they did on that day. (That attitude is probably part of what convinced them that I was harmless).

    But I do think that if this had happened in Arizona, and I had (a) looked hispanic and (b) spoken broken English, under the new law I would be taken to the station and required to prove my citizenship. As far as I can tell, the law would *require* the police to do that.

    it wouldn’t be all that bad to require people to have ID, or register a biometric the police could check out if they think you’re an illegal citizen

    this is where i’m going with distrust: what possible reason would you have to require people to have ID at all times? It seems to me that such a policy is based on the presumption that anybody could be doing something wrong and has to prove that they aren’t.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  29. aphrael – Doesn’t the law specify that the request can only come as a secondary result after another crime has been committed/suspected? By that, I mean it does not allow them to simply approach you and demand a drivers license. It requires said request to be in conjunction with speeding, running a red light, etc ….

    JD (d55760)

  30. #9 – thank you JD, I thought the same thing. I guess technically if you don’t drive, you’re not required a license, but there isn’t a day that I do not interact with some merchant, school official, after-school activity, doctor, etc. that does not require me to produce some type of ID.

    Hell, when we were on vacation in California a couple weeks ago I had to provide my driver’s license every single time I used my credit card. Didn’t mind at all. What about getting on a plane?

    Just this week I had to track down our marriage certificate, copy a mortgage payment coupon to prove cohabitation, and dig out my kid’s birth certificates, all for my husband to fax to our insurance providers – no proof, dropped from plan. His parent company was requiring it so that they could clear out any false dependents.

    Tomorrow, I’ll have to provide proof of car insurance as I purchase my car tags. And in a few weeks, when both my kids begin school, I’ll be faxing and copying more things than I even want to think about – all so they may stay in school – one public, one private.

    THIS is what annoys me the most about all the brohaha over Arizona. People act like we all just walk around free, no “papers” required for anyone. Just the unlucky few who must be “burdened.”

    It’s called being an adult. And yes, on some levels, it totally sucks. Grow up.

    em (ae4747)

  31. aphrael – The existing laws on the books, at the federal level, for legal immigrants, green card holders, etc … require them to have their documents on them at all times, no?

    JD (d55760)

  32. aphrael, I honestly don’t think I’m overstating degree. The majority of US citizens are required to have a driver’s license (which is what I am alluding to as my “papers”) or other ID to do any sort of regular business; everytime I make a bank withdrawal or deposit, I have to show it (usually 2 forms of ID), as well as all of those other occasions I mentioned. We all carry our “papers” in our billfold &/or handbag every day, all the time. To me, having to show my license to do any or all of these things is no different than a legal or illegal resident having to have some form of ID that they also carry at all times. I do agree with you that it is all very depressing.

    caston (6d984e)

  33. Arizona has passed a law which, in effect, requires people to prove themselves innocent when a policeman suspects them.

    LOL

    You apply principles far beyond what’s I think is logical when it suits your argument, but in this case, you are posing a principle that doesn’t need much application to reject.

    What about my requirement to have health insurance? Or put my registration sticker on my car? Or my requirement to show I have a concealed handgun permit when I am stopped while carrying a gun?

    You have to prove yourself innocent… or what? Or you’re given a fair trial?

    A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

    This isn’t nearly that bad as being judged guilty by cops because you didn’t have any ID.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  34. EM: i’m a 36 year old married man with a successful first career in process of launching a second career; I almost never find myself being asked to provide any form of ID.

    So: the fact that your life requires it daily does not mean that every adult’s life does. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  35. I recently opened a checking account at Wells Fargo. Every time I make a deposit I am forced to produce two forms of ID – even when I am not taking any money out. Note this is when I am making a deposit!

    When I challenge the teller, the branch manager comes over and explains it is their policy because it is a new account (???)and they need to know who is making deposits into it. Yet Wells Fargo accepts Mexican matricular consular IDs from illegals to establish accounts…even though those cards are issued by the Mexican government without any form of identity checking, and can be bought for a few bucks in dozens of parks and street corners in and around Southern California.

    I suggest we shutdown Wells Fargo for unduly burdening me.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  36. requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

    On its face, the person is held until the status is verified.

    So: you’re held until you prove your immigration status to the cops.

    Sure, you haven’t been found guilty … but you’re also not free to go and the burden of proof lies with you.

    [I don’t think anyone has contemplated a law requiring the police, if they suspect you of not having health insurance, to hold you in custody until you prove you have it; the situations aren’t analagous.

    The registration sticker is analagous to drivers’ licenses while driving … a requirement that I have not objected to and do not object to. I don’t know what the penalty is for not having a handgun permit when you are stopped with your gun, but my suspicion is that I object to them – I don’t like guns in general and would prefer a world with fewer of them, but the constitution protects your right to them and requiring you to prove that you have a permit to exercise that right seems inconsistent with the constitution.]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. JD: right, but i’m not talking about the immigrants themselves, i’m talking about citizens who are suspected of being immigrants.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  38. in_awe: and yet if you make a deposit via an ATM, you aren’t required to provide any ID at all besides your pin number. there’s nothing whatsoever to prevent me from depositing money in your account via ATM using your pin number.

    Which is to say: some means of putting money in a bank require ID; some don’t.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  39. Having lived in a major metropolitan area for most of my entire life, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that if you’re out after 1:00 AM it would behoove you to carry some kind of ID, if for nothing else than common sense. My own experience has been that nothing good happens after 3:00 AM in my area, if not sooner.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  40. For that matter – my husband’s bank allows him to deposit checks by scanning them to a file and then emailing the file.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  41. If we go to Mexico, or France, or wherever, those places require us to have identification.

    The idea that’s it’s a burden should be rejected. It’s 2010 now, and we can simply have everyone fingerprinted, and have that shoved into a database. I know this is scary sounding, but require a fingerprint to vote. Including absentee. Require it instead of a driver’s license. They can download all the relevant information, and you don’t even need to carry a wallet.

    Of course, you leave finger prints behind and the government would be able to track you. This entails a lot of bad stuff that’s already being done, to be honest. They already track people with millions of cameras and credit cards.

    If there was an option for privacy, that would be one thing, but that’s a fiction. The burden is ridiculous, and the privacy concern is moot. We could have a much better ID system that solved a few problems.

    Of course, this is a pipe dream.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. My problem with aphrael’s construct is that it assumes that people will be stopped and arrested for simply being brown, or not having papers. The law, the Executive Order, and the subsequent amendments went to great lengths to clarify that said situation not be the genesis of the arrests.

    JD (d55760)

  43. #34 – than you’re luckier than me. Maybe it’s time for me to leave Texas.

    Nah.

    em (ae4747)

  44. JD: I’ve given a specific example of a scenario in which someone could be stopped for legitimate reasons and yet still be detained for not carrying ID. I think that ought to go some way towards refuting the claim that my construct “assumes that people will be stopped and arrested for simply being brown, or not having papers.”

    Some of my concern could certainly be assuaged if Arizona could promulgate a set of standards for determining reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  45. in_awe: and yet if you make a deposit via an ATM, you aren’t required to provide any ID at all besides your pin number. there’s nothing whatsoever to prevent me from depositing money in your account via ATM using your pin number.

    Which is to say: some means of putting money in a bank require ID; some don’t.

    Comment by aphrael

    You know, this completely misses the point that nobody really finds this burden to burdensome. it’s kinda nothing. You’re arguing an irrelevant point… he’s demonstrated that a lot of people are already required to carry ID just so they can live their normal lives.

    It’s like a law requiring me to eat food at least once a week. Yes, there is a civil liberties concern, but this concern is not that it’s a burden, because… it’s not.

    Well, while I like to talk about the law more generally, in this case, this isn’t about hunting down Mexicans standing idle doing nothing but enjoying the day and delivering a punishment if they can’t show ID. Respectfully, you’re using terminology like ‘prove myself innocent’ that suggests you don’t understand.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. #43 – excuse me “then” you’re…hate typos.

    em (ae4747)

  47. You’re right: I don’t understand at all who is subject to being detained for failure to prove their immigration status.

    I know that anyone who is involved in a legal police contact and is “reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant” is.

    You and I have clearly different impressions of who that will be.

    What impression do Arizona police agencies have?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  48. I know that anyone who is involved in a legal police contact and is “reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant” is.

    You and I have clearly different impressions of who that will be.

    You mentioned earlier you won’t be confused as an immigrant (I found that pretty amusing, since you look just like one).

    I know what you’re trying to say: brown people.

    You’re missing the point. People who are reasonably suspicious of being illegal are those without a DL or insurance, stopped for a traffic violation. There are a few other cases reasonably similar to that, but I just described the vast majority of the suspected.

    It’s not about race, and you know it. It’s not due to racism that most illegals will be Mexican… that’s just the reality.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  49. Federal policy is in conflict with federal law; AZ law is not. So the bottom line is that the Obama administration is asking the court to give their policy (which conflicts with the law) the force of law. And this judge agrees. Oh, boy, this country is in trouble.

    Socratease (28b29b)

  50. aphrael – What part of the AZ law would allow the scenario you describe? Specifically.

    JD (d55760)

  51. How would the Executive Order and the amendments effect said situation?

    JD (d55760)

  52. I agree w/ you Dustin. The short answer to the whole debate is that if you don’t have some sort of legal ID when stopped for other matters, you are going to get more scrutiny. If you are here illegally you have broken the law & should be deported. It is unfair to all of the native born Americans and legal immigrants (from anywhere) who went through the proper channels to become citizens. My tax dollars should not have to fund all sorts of special benefits, accomodations, subsidies & all of the other perks to which illegals are currently entitled. No other country bends over like that for people who are in their country illegally. In fact, I am pretty sure that around the world, such folks are imprisoned & then deported immediately.

    caston (6d984e)

  53. I gotta run, but it’s always a pleasure to argue with people like Aphrael.

    JD’s right, btw.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  54. Forget the details, that’s for the lawyers to worry about. Everybody who cares already gets the message and everyone who’s been paying attention already has Obama’s number.

    Our governmental institutions aren’t about to begin upholding our laws or representing the majority of citizens in this country till we make them do it on pain of death.

    But, electoral politics come first, there’s a mid-term election in about 3 months, start getin’ ready. Let your voice be heard, loud and clear. This will be the most important off year election in the lifetime of any living American.

    There will be time enough to deal with the over supply of lame ducks if they don’t straighten up and fly right.

    ropelight (1754ae)

  55. Does the law not specify exactly what can constitute immigration status, and exactly what databases are to be utilized in determining same?

    JD (d55760)

  56. You’ve met me, JD, you know I talk with an accent. My former law partner, now a judge in Chicago, is an African-descended Puerto Rican. Do we need to carry our proof of citienship with us in case we are stopped for going a mile over the limit? And why should the police believe those little pieces of paper and not send us to ICE to determine our status? For a week … a month?

    Laws are what governments do in place of doing something.

    nk (db4a41)

  57. “EM: i’m a 36 year old married man with a successful first career in process of launching a second career; I almost never find myself being asked to provide any form of ID.”

    aphrael – When I bank electronically or via ATM I don’t have to present an ID, but when I bank in person I typically do. If you actually bank with a real person, what does your bank require?

    When I purchased a fishing license two weeks ago I had to present identification and earlier this week when U had to get a document notarized I had to present identification. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

    With respect to getting stopped in the middle of the night by police scouring a neighborhood after a burglary, presumably somebody looking to prove their immigration status would have the same opportunity to verbally prove their bona fides as you did rather than automatically be incarcerated. Why did you not consider that option?

    I think you are making this more difficult than it needs to be, just as it often tends to get in discussions over voter ID requirements.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  58. Patterico is absolutely correct. The judge gave the gift of motivation for conservatives and all those “independents” that are increasingly alarmed at judges playing politics. A shame we can’t get an amendment passed that requires Federal District judges to be voted to be retained in office after 6 years in office with their terms to run the same as Senators. Appellate judges get 10 years and SCOTUS get 12. Votes would be by jurisdiction with SCOTUS being a national vote.

    cedarhill (1a0b20)

  59. Yes, you do, and it has nothing to do with your accent. The law requires you to carry a drivers license when operating a vehicle.

    JD (d55760)

  60. So: you’re held until you prove your immigration status to the cops.

    Sure, you haven’t been found guilty … but you’re also not free to go and the burden of proof lies with you.

    99.99999% of the time, they’ll be able to input data into their SCMODS in order to identify you, delaying you all of 2 minutes.

    This is an undue burden? I’ve waited longer to buy a stamp.

    SaveFarris (1fcf1d)

  61. Comment by Dmac — 7/28/2010 @ 1:16 pm

    It keeps you out of the John Doe section in the morgue.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  62. Racist jingoistic xenophobes, all of you.

    JD (d55760)

  63. “Do we need to carry our proof of citienship with us in case we are stopped for going a mile over the limit?”

    nk – Unless Obama changes the law, my undersranding is that your drivers license serves as proof of your citizenship or legal residence. Am I wrong?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  64. Do we need to carry our proof of citienship with us in case we are stopped for going a mile over the limit?

    Yes, nk, you need to have a driver’s license in case you are stopped for speeding.

    And if this problem you describe, of someone being held for a month while citizenship is determined, were to occur, it would be horrible and deserve a USC 42 Section 1983 claim.

    I think you know better than most of us that the criminal justice system is about balancing things. How much weighs against the kind of enforcement Arizona is attempting? I think it’s a lot and they are being reasonable enough.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. Comment by nk — 7/28/2010 @ 1:48 pm

    nk, for a lawyer you have a demonstrated non-ability to read the laws that you are discussing.

    AZ specifically notes that possession of a State-issued Driver’s License is proof of citizenship.
    If you are stopped for a vehicle infraction, and cannot provide identification, the police already have the option of detaining you until your identity can be ascertained, and that has nothing to do with immigration.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  66. I understand that ICE in its role in enforcing Federal immigration law can request ID from anyone at any time without having suspicion of a prior crime. ICE can stop you and request ID specifically because you “look Hispanic”. If the Feds can do it, why can’t other Law enforcement officials do so?

    Hangtown Bob (2cb356)

  67. And HB, the Feds (ICE) can do this in any part of the country, not just along the border.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  68. Ya know, this whole thing reeks of the Mendendez brothers complaining that they are orphans.

    It really doesn’t make too much sense for a state to deal with immigration. If each state could do that, California could just legalize everyone on the planet for a giggle. It’s not a workable solution.

    But it’s all we’re left with, because the party complaining about this system is the one that refuses to enforce the laws… the very laws it says give it the absolute authority and responsibility to do the thing it claims it doesn’t have to do.

    Arizona’s endgame was always a federal government that enforces the law.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  69. It is also interesting that this judge found that the “United States” (I assume she’s talking about the Government of the United States) would suffer irreparable harm if AZ is allowed to continue…the harm being that the Government, by its’ own admission, does not have the resources to enforce immigration law, and the submission of additional immigration detainees by AZ to ICE, would force the Government to redirect resources from those areas that it has given a higher priority.

    Oh, Boo Hoo!

    What, this is going to force Justice to pull lawyers away from prosecuting voting-rights cases like the New Black Panthers?

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  70. It’s time to call out the “un-organized militia”!

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  71. The role of the courts is to give the wealthy open borders lobby what it wants. (See Prop 187) It’s naive to analyze this ruling through a legal prism. The courts know what they’re supposed to say, the only interesting question is what rationale they can concoct to justify it.

    Subotai (347c23)

  72. AZ specifically notes that possession of a State-issued Driver’s License is proof of citizenship.

    Not so.

    A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Section 2(B) also states that if an officer is presented with one of the
    following forms of identification, the officer is to presume that the person is not an
    unauthorized alien: (1) a valid Arizona driver license or identification license; (2) a valid
    tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification; or (3) a valid United States federal, state, or local form of identification, provided that the issuing entity requires proof of
    citizenship before issuance
    .

    I’m from Illinois. All I needed was a Social Security number and a couple of utility bills (to establish address) to get a driver’s license. So let’s drop that lie.

    nk (db4a41)

  73. Comment by Subotai — 7/28/2010 @ 2:47 pm

    An interesting observation.
    Have you read Angelo Codevilla’s piece in The American Spectator, “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution“?
    This is part and parcel of which he writes.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  74. I don’t want to push this too much because I do believe the Federal government is sleeping on the job regarding border enforcement but … I don’t know how else I would have ruled were I the judge in this case.

    nk (db4a41)

  75. “The role of the courts is to give the wealthy open borders lobby what it wants. (See Prop 187) It’s naive to analyze this ruling through a legal prism. The courts know what they’re supposed to say, the only interesting question is what rationale they can concoct to justify it.”

    Indeed. The Ruling Class has Deemed Open Borders passed… they call in a hack-judge to give Any Ruling That Fits. This is a travesty, but not one we havent seen coming. The law, the border, and the country are lost.

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  76. “All I needed was a Social Security number and a couple of utility bills (to establish address) to get a driver’s license. So let’s drop that lie.”

    nk – Back to my #63. Am I correct that theoretically you have to be a legal resident to get a social security number? If so, unless Obama changes the law, doesn’t the possession of a validly issued drivers license satisfy the requirement that an individual is legally present in this country?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  77. Comment by nk — 7/28/2010 @ 3:19 pm

    It is obvious that you have not visited a DMV since the implementation of the Real ID Act, which IIRC, calls for verification of citizenship for the issuance of a DL, as in showing a Birth Cert.
    Some would say that showing your SocSec card is proof of legal status within the U.S. since it is to be issued only to citizens, and to Green-Card holders; but, since it does not include photo ID, it is not dispositive of identity, and cannot be used for other than SocSec purposes.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  78. But that’s not the Arizona law, daleyrocks. It says “citizenship” not “legal residence”. It seems to me like Arizona adopted Mexican law.

    nk (db4a41)

  79. And, since we are dealing with opinion here, for the most part, I find the labeling of opinion as a “lie” quite offensive.
    Therefore, I would expect you to retract such an accusation unless you have iron-clad proof of an intent to deceive.
    Do you have such proof, counselor?

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  80. Anyway, I don’t want to fight about this because I do believe in border enforcement and that the Feds have not been doing what they should do about it. As a matter of fact, we have put Border Patrol agents in prison just for doing their job.

    nk (db4a41)

  81. And, since we are dealing with opinion here, for the most part, I find the labeling of opinion as a “lie” quite offensive.
    Therefore, I would expect you to retract such an accusation unless you have iron-clad proof of an intent to deceive.
    Do you have such proof, counselor?

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 7/28/2010 @ 3:33 pm

    I didn’t mean that you lied, AD, but that you were lied to. I posted the full text of the section of the statute and it does say “citizenship”. That’s Mr. Russel Pearce’s doing, I believe.

    nk (db4a41)

  82. How was I lied to, if the United States Government requires the States to verify citizenship, or legal status, before issuing a Driver’s License, and the Arizona statute accepts a Government-Issued ID as proof of that legal status?

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  83. There’s something about that Russell Pearce guy that I just don’t trust.

    nk (db4a41)

  84. “But that’s not the Arizona law, daleyrocks. It says “citizenship” not “legal residence”.”

    nk – The law which you quoted above says unauthorized alien, not citizen, which is the point I am making. Should you or I be looking at a different law?

    “A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). Section 2(B) also states that if an officer is presented with one of the
    following forms of identification, the officer is to presume that the person is not an
    unauthorized alien”

    daleyrocks (940075)

  85. How was I lied to, if the United States Government requires the States to verify citizenship, or legal status, before issuing a Driver’s License, and the Arizona statute accepts a Government-Issued ID as proof of that legal status?

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 7/28/2010 @ 3:40 pm

    The statute does not say “citizenship, or legal status”, it just says “citizenship”.

    Scream.

    That’s how lawyers and judges make their living. Little distinctions like that.

    I would never call you a liar, AD. Gullible … I guess I already have. I’m sorry.

    nk (db4a41)

  86. And, BTW, the act (SB-1070) was mostly written by a law-school prof ( Professor Kris Kobach) who was an advisor to Sen Pearce, or his cmte, and who is not loath to defend his work in national forums.
    Perhaps this will help:
    http://www.publiusnm.org/az-sb-1070-from-the-author/

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  87. Sigh.

    nk (db4a41)

  88. Apology accepted; but,
    it is The Real ID Act, that requires States to verify citizenship or legal status before issuing a Driver’s License, not SB-1070.
    You’ve no doubt heard of The Real ID Act, nk?
    Another intrusive imposition by the Federal Government on the lives and privacy of us simple folk.
    The one that specifies what form of ID is acceptable to the airlines and the TSA for you to board an airliner…
    which brings up a story of how my United States Coast Guard/Department of Homeland Security issued USCG Auxiliary ID card confused the poor lads from TSA at the Southwest terminal in Indianapolis last Friday…seems that they couldn’t find the expiration date, which is contained in a block labeled “EXP. DATE”, immediately preceeded by a block labeled “DATE OF BIRTH”.
    These things are so confusing to the little dears.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  89. Sigh.

    Section 1. Section 1-501, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

    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.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  90. But daley, that’s an imposition on those poor government officials charged with implementing such public benefit programs, when all we want them to do is just hand out our money to anyone who asks for it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  91. Bolton thinks certain
    events will occur with no
    data but her thoughts

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  92. Interesting, but I’ll take a guess. Aphrael is probably from the Northern part of these United States–San Francisco and above. College grad from a similarly located institution–Maybe Berkeley. Guessing under 35 and no kids yet. He isn’t married yet, but they plan on it soon. Lives in a condo, drives a Saab, jogs regularly. Comes from family money, but is highly motivated.
    My point is he doesn’t interact with the illegals–mexican, asian or others in any way. He isn’t able to understand our dilemma because he is totally isolated from it. Somehow, we need to convince the rest of the electorate, or we are doomed along with Aphrael and his as yet unborn children

    bald01 (3771f4)

  93. Colonel think Bolton
    ruling evidence of
    Obamanation

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  94. “In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.”

    – Heather Mac Donald

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  95. AD @90 – That’s straight out of AZ SB 1070 and took 60 seconds of Yahoo search.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  96. AD – Further on in AZ SB 1070:

    “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.”

    Nothing about being a freaking citizen.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  97. is it still valid if it’s expired you think? I would guess not.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  98. a parking ticket
    if paid time on the meter
    is expired? Sí

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  99. You’ve no doubt heard of The Real ID Act, nk?
    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 7/28/2010 @ 3:54 pm

    I don’t need ID. I know who I am.

    That’s where I’m coming from, guys.

    Like I said, before, I’ll cook a couple of hot dogs, take a nap, watch a kung fu movie on YouTube, and stop fighting with you.

    BTW, my wife and daughter are in Greece, due back this Saturday, but the fuel deliverers have gone on strike (including jet fuel). Can somebody lend me a battalion of Gurkhas? http://www.saysuncle.com/2010/07/27/hardcore/ 😉 Safe for work.

    nk (db4a41)

  100. “is it still valid if it’s expired you think? I would guess not.”

    feets – Ask nk, but he doesn’t think it’s valid no how anyways.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  101. Bald01: see comment #36.

    I grew up alternately in New Jersey, Texas, and the suburbs of Los Angeles. I currently live in a suburb of San Francisco (or, maybe, San Jose). I’m a married gay man. I live in an apartment, drive a honda, and hike regularly. My parents were divorced before I was born, and my single parent never made more than $30K a year; saying I come from ‘family money’ is absurd.

    I don’t know if I’m interacting with illegals directly: I don’t particularly care about the immigation status of people I interact with, and would never ask.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  102. “a married gay man…”

    Colonel have just one
    quick question aphrael do your
    wife know about this?

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  103. ColonelHaiku, my husband is certainly aware.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  104. Colonel so sorry
    had that one all wrong aphrael
    he still all old school

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  105. I thought ‘Aphrael’ had 3 syllables.

    ‘course, I’m southern.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  106. Aphrael–Sorry, didn’t see that coming

    bald01 (3771f4)

  107. Dustin drink RC
    cola, eat moonpies and bark
    at the f*ckin moon?

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  108. Dustin: in my mind it has three syllables. rhymes with ‘rafael’.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  109. Just another note on this judge. I heard a report on TV (can’t remember the network) that yesterday (the 27th) she was not available for comment and making vacation plans. I assume she wanted to LEAVE town–can’t say that I blame her, with over 2/3 of the electorate against your opinion.

    bald01 (3771f4)

  110. that an old Imus
    riff from long time ago no
    offense intended

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  111. “Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.”

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  112. bald01: that was precisely my point; i think it’s harder than most people think to make accurate assumptions about people’s lives from their political positions. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  113. “Like I said, before, I’ll cook a couple of hot dogs, take a nap, watch a kung fu movie on YouTube, and stop fighting with you.”

    nk – Take 30 minutes to read AZ SB 1070 in your spare time. It’ll help your arguments.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  114. Sitting here watching Laura Ingraham fill in for that lout O’Reilly – what a refreshing change – I wondered why none of these program hosts have set aside some time on one of their hour-long shows, placed the verbiage from this law on screen and scrolled their way through it, giving highlights as they go. It would be a great way to show the people how groundless and specious the arguments are that are used against the AZ law.

    Perhaps Glenn Beck has done this?

    GeneralMalaise (ac3c3c)

  115. I can’t imagine what planet Aphrael lives on that he rarely has to show ID. Or else he rarely leaves home.

    When I moved to AZ 24 years ago, I had to show my driver’s license from my previous state as well as my birth certificate, take a written test and eye exam to get my license. The law has changed somewhat as written tests are no longer required and some states are excluded from being able to use previous licenses to avoid a test. I’m still trying to determine what two IDs are required now.
    My computer is not playing fair.

    I also registered to vote when I got my license, which was another reason for the birth certificate.

    Wasn’t Judge Bolton appointed by Clinton. This decision did not surprise me at all.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  116. AD (and others)–
    the DL requirements of the Real ID act are being phased in, so there are plenty of people around who don’t have Real ID compliant DLs. When I went for my current one, all I needed (that I can recall) is my old DL and proof of residence and car insurance, and it’s valid until my birthday next year. At that time I may have to show up at the DMV to obtain a Real ID compliant DL, or I may be able to renew by mail for another six years–depending on what the DMV opts for. And if I am allowed to renew by mail, I am (in theory) at least allowed to renew once more time by mail before I have to show up in person. (That happened with the previous DL, which I got to carry around for eighteen years or so.) So I might not need to obtain a real ID compliant DL until 2023–although I suspect that in real life I won’t be allowed to renew by mail next year.

    BTW, Rick Scott, the self financing millionaire who is a candidate for governor, has been running ads promising a law modeled on Arizona’s law here in Florida, and attacking McCollum, his GOP primary opponent (and the more or less GOP establishment candidate) for being against such a law. McCollum’s statement on the subject was something like “we don’t need that in Florida”.
    Given the differences between the immigration scenario in Florida and in Arizona, McCollum is probably right–we have a very large legal immigration population and a relatively small illegal population, and many of the latter are not Hispanic (there are a number of Central American farmworkers around, but the largest number of illegals is probably from the Haitian community, followed by the Europeans). Not to mention the enormous number of Hispanics born in Florida, and the large Puerto Rican community, which is actually bigger in Central Florida than it is in South Florida.

    kishnevi (b40a74)

  117. JD

    good point but there is a difference that driving does require a lic whereas taking a bus, going to a mall, work does not

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  118. Off topic, but might as well add the opening statemtent from one of Scott’s prior ads:

    Politicians are like diapers: they need changing often

    kishnevi (ac7982)

  119. Arrgh. Statement, not statemtent, whatever a statemtent is.

    kishnevi (ac7982)

  120. EPWJ – Where in the statute, Executive Order, and amendments allows people to be arrested for taking a bus, going to a mall, or going to work?

    JD (d55760)

  121. Aphrael, My “sorry” comment was not intended to be sorry for my earlier comment, but sorry for you and your lifestyle. I don’t respect your choice, but do respect your right to choose it.
    My point is still valid, you are not in daily touch with the illegal element and therefore don’t know how to walk in these shoes. You will see this problem in “heavy duty fashion” within 5 years. Arizona is only the first attempt at trying to bring some sense to the people. We are only trying to enfore the federal law.

    bald01 (3771f4)

  122. The opinion is very unconvincing in its failure to really address the fact that Federal statute authorizes Arizona’s actions implicitly.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. That was really quite rude, bald01.

    JD (d55760)

  124. This was just another case of “the Ruling Class” making something up to assert their authority over “the Country Class”.
    These types of controversies, when settled by “the Ruling Class” always end with an enlargement of the power of the Central Government at the expense of the States, and the People.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  125. JD

    In every aspect of the law, however, I feel the Republicans, should inact the law at the federal level deputizing at least state troopers if not all sheriffs departments and mandate it and pay for it

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  126. EPWJ – Every aspect of the law, including the Executive Order, and the amendments allow for people to be arrested for taking a bus, going to the mall, or to work? Am I mis-stating your position?

    JD (d55760)

  127. yes and no – the point is that anyone can be arrested at anytime for any reason if an officer decides he has suspicion

    Also an ilegal immigrant lets say falsely arrested for being suspected without a reasonable legal suspicion is still an ilegal immigrant and opens a whole new can of worms of more complex legal issues which I’m afraid will lead to legal rights for illegals on an even greater level, in effect tacitly paving the way to an open free for all – which the ilegal advocates may be transparently trying to force through the courts

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  128. Where in the law is that allowed for, EPWJ?

    JD (d55760)

  129. No matter what the case will be heard by the 9th DCA and they will “judgeislate” their own opinion as usual –therefore the case has been destined for the SCOTUS from day one.

    drone (f88f1f)

  130. JD

    everywhere,

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  131. Why not just cut to the chase and declare that cops have the power to determine status a priori, and carry out a summary execution?

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  132. Wrong, EPWJ. You are not correctly describing the basis for arrest.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  133. Comment by SPQR — 7/28/2010 @ 7:03 pm

    Shocka!

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  134. Everywhere is not really an answer, EPWJ. Were it actually in the law, EO, and amendment, you should be able to show us where exactly that is.

    JD (d55760)

  135. JD, tell that to Harry Blackmun.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  136. SPQR, um no, but the point is that they Feds no need to make it possible for law enforcement to enforce so there is no argument

    JD, sorry for the delay connection dropped

    I guess one could ask for examples where a state upset with the Federal enforcement of solely federal issues had ordered its local law enforcement to enforce federal issues and issued its own guideines (weak as they were I grant you that) but that law was just a law of that day – it opened the door to other legislatures deciding their own interpretations of federal issues and their approach to recifying the situation

    whats to prevent Texas from declaring war on North Korea and ordering its considerable Guard assets to South Korea? Or even Mexico?

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  137. EPWJ, provide exactly the language that describes the problem none of us have found after reading the law, please.

    Texas invading North Korea sounds pretty freaking sweet, but let’s try a little harder to keep things on topic.

    “Um, no” as a retort to SPQR, who we all know really doesn’t jump out on limbs, just isn’t compelling.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  138. I meant to say that the Feds DO need to make it possible for law enforcement to enforce

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  139. Okay, none of that had anything to do with the topic.

    JD (d55760)

  140. JD

    In your opinion, incorrect as always, but in your opinion

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  141. dustin,

    Medina wanted to send the guard to the border with orders to pursue if necessary

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  142. It is not my opinion that talking about Texas declaring war on North Korea has nothing to do with what I asked you. That is a fact, beyond dispute.

    Where, exactly, in the law is it allowed for people to be arrested for riding on a bus, going to the mall, or riding to work?

    JD (d55760)

  143. Sorry, JD. EPWJ has proven his case. Your stupid point “being arrested for riding the bus while hispanic isn’t in the law” and “this isn’t about North Korea” is torn apart by “I’m right because I say I am 3 times”.

    Considered yourself pwned, dude.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  144. Anyway, I believe Brewer knew this would be struck down, this was a really clever vent by a state to grab resources they felt they were due (and probably were) – its about the benjamins not the banderos

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  145. Damn, Dustin. If I knew it was that easy …

    JD (d55760)

  146. JD,

    again everywhere, read the judges order – I know that reading comprehension is different in different parts of the country but try and read it

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  147. Senate Bill 1070

    AN ACT

    Amending title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding article 8; amending title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 13‑1509; amending section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes; amending Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding sections 13-2928 and 13‑2929; amending sections 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 and 28-3511, Arizona revised statutes; amending title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 41-1724; relating to unlawfully present aliens.

    Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

    Section 1. Intent

    The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

    Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

    ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

    START_STATUTE11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

    A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

    B. 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 person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

    C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection.

    D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.

    E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

    F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

    1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

    2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

    3. Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

    4. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.

    G. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:

    1. That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

    2. That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

    H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G and remit the civil penalty to the department of public safety for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724.

    I. A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

    J. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read:

    START_STATUTE13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification

    A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:

    1. Present on any public or private land in this state.

    2. In violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

    B. In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien’s immigration status shall be determined by either:

    1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.

    2. A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

    C. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.

    D. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:

    1. At least five hundred dollars for a first violation.

    2. Twice the amount specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.

    E. A court shall collect the assessments prescribed in subsection D of this section and remit the assessments to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

    F. This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.

    G. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that a violation of this section is:

    1. A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

    (a) A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

    (b) Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

    (c) A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

    (d) Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

    2. A class 4 felony if the person either:

    (a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

    (b) Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

    START_STATUTE13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions

    A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.

    B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

    C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section:

    1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

    2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

    D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.

    E. Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and this section.

    E. F. For the purposes of this section:

    1. “Family member” means the person’s parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.

    2. “Procurement of transportation” means any participation in or facilitation of transportation and includes:

    (a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel arrangement services or money transmission services.

    (b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as defined in section 13-2322.

    3. “Smuggling of human beings” means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:

    START_STATUTE13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions

    A. It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

    B. It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

    C. It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.

    D. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.

    E. For the purposes of this section:

    1. “Solicit” means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed.

    2. “Unauthorized alien” means an alien who does not have the legal right or authorization under federal law to work in the United States as described in 8 United States Code section 1324a(h)(3). END_STATUTE

    START_STATUTE13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle impoundment; classification

    A. It is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:

    1. Transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in this state in a means of transportation if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

    2. Conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

    3. Encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law.

    B. A means of transportation that is used in the commission of a violation of this section is subject to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment pursuant to section 28-3511.

    C. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of at least one thousand dollars, except that a violation of this section that involves ten or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony and the person is subject to a fine of at least one thousand dollars for each alien who is involved. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

    START_STATUTE23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

    A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

    B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

    C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

    1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

    2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

    3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

    D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23‑212.01, subsection A.

    E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

    F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

    1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:

    (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

    (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23‑722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

    (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order. The court shall send a copy of the court’s order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

    (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

    (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

    (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

    (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

    (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

    (v) The duration of the violation.

    (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

    (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

    2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

    3. The violation shall be considered:

    (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212.01, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

    (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212.01, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

    G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general’s website.

    H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government’s determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government’s determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee’s lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

    I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

    J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

    K. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection A of this section that the employer was entrapped. To claim entrapment, the employer must admit by the employer’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation. An employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

    1. The idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer.

    2. The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

    3. The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

    L. An employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to violate subsection A of this section and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity. The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

    START_STATUTE23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

    A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

    B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

    C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

    1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

    2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

    3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

    D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23‑212, subsection A.

    E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

    F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

    1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:

    (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

    (b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23‑722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

    (c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

    (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

    (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

    (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

    (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

    (v) The duration of the violation.

    (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

    (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

    (d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order. The court shall send a copy of the court’s order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

    2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

    3. The violation shall be considered:

    (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

    (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23‑212, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

    G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general’s website.

    H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government’s determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government’s determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee’s lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

    I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

    J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

    K. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection A of this section that the employer was entrapped. To claim entrapment, the employer must admit by the employer’s testimony or other evidence the substantial elements of the violation. An employer who asserts an entrapment defense has the burden of proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

    1. The idea of committing the violation started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the employer.

    2. The law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

    3. The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

    L. An employer does not establish entrapment if the employer was predisposed to violate subsection A of this section and the law enforcement officers or their agents merely provided the employer with an opportunity to commit the violation. It is not entrapment for law enforcement officers or their agents merely to use a ruse or to conceal their identity. The conduct of law enforcement officers and their agents may be considered in determining if an employer has proven entrapment. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

    START_STATUTE23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e‑verify program; economic development incentives; list of registered employers

    A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program and shall keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.

    B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity’s determination of noncompliance and the employer’s right to appeal the determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the purposes of this subsection:

    1. “Economic development incentive” means any grant, loan or performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax provision under title 42 or 43.

    2. “Government entity” means this state and any political subdivision of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.

    C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the attorney general’s website. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

    START_STATUTE28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle

    A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

    1. The person’s driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any reason.

    2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.

    3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph does not apply to a person operating an employer’s vehicle or the operation of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28‑1464.

    4. The person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to transport, move, conceal, harbor or shield an alien in this state in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

    B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply:

    1. The person’s driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.

    2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

    3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person.

    C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4‑244, paragraph 34 or section 28‑1382 or 28‑1383.

    D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if all of the following apply:

    1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

    2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest.

    3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver:

    (a) Has a valid driver license.

    (b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.

    (c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse’s body if the spouse is under twenty‑one years of age.

    4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver’s home or other place of safety.

    5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this subsection.

    E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment.

    F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department’s record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28‑3514.END_STATUTE

    Sec. 10. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:

    START_STATUTE41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund

    The gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund is established consisting of monies deposited pursuant to section 11‑1051 and monies appropriated by the legislature. The department shall administer the fund. Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation and shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration. END_STATUTE

    Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction

    A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

    B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.

    C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

    Sec. 12. Short title

    This act may be cited as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.

    JD (d55760)

  148. So in the end it was about tate budgets and taxes and services not the sanctity of a constitution that has been intrepreted for at least 2 centuries

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  149. I cannot find anything in there about arresting people for going to the mall, riding a bus, or going to work. In fact, everything I read in the Executive Order and the amendments suggests the exact opposite.

    JD (d55760)

  150. Is EPWJ really suggesting Brewer did this for the piddly little federal assistance Obama gave up?

    LOL.

    Any 8 year old could tell you that Brewer expected to lose the legal challenge. She’s in the ninth circuit and it’s no shock this wound up with a democrat appointed district judge.

    This is about showing the people that the federal government will sue to prevent the enforcement of precisely the laws they are sworn to uphold. Precisely. All these fears of abuses are based on laws that have been on the books for some time, and where part of a major compromise in the 1980s.

    The beltway decided to enforce their side of the deal and simply ignore the other side. That’s disgusting. And political pressure is building, partly because of this affront today, and partly because the problem is becoming unbearable for Arizonans.

    This isn’t about some slice of pork.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  151. again everywhere, read the judges order –

    LOL, I read the opinion and it doesn’t rule on anything… and it leaves most of the law in place. You just made a powerful point against yourself, EPWJ. She criticized a few specific components. You say her order specifically is addressing your concerns, so you can easily read the 500 words or so and point out where your fears rest.

    Or you could just insist it’s everywhere, like the Holy Spirit of Racism.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  152. Oh, and when certain people urge others to have greater reading comprehension, that person might want to run a spell check program on their own posts.

    I’m just sayin’.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  153. Eric B

    152 when you can construct even simple sentences clearly, and hey how about actually adding to the conversation…

    hang in there Eric..

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  154. Dustin

    no you didnt read it – Geez

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  155. By 500 words or so, I am referring to the specific provisions the Judge enjoined.

    EPWJ claims his point was made by the judge, so it should be there.

    And yet it obviously is not there.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  156. http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf

    I cannot find anything in there about arresting people for going to the mall, work, or riding the bus.

    JD (d55760)

  157. You’re right, EPWJ. None of us are intelligent, and all of us are liars. We are totally making it up as we go along because we just hate you that much.

    Just like the many other incidents where you claim to have proof of something, and then when people ask you what that proof is, get annoyed when you just moan and moan and moan without actually showing us the proof.

    Cut and paste what you’re talking about. Put up or shut up.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  158. I consider this to be a significant step on the road to a police state. Comment by aphrael — 7/28/2010 @ 12:44 pm

    I’ve heard the people in Mexico are quite unhappy and exasperated because their country is a police state.

    Speaking of idyllic societies, Susan Bolton should be given an all-expense-paid trip to our neighbor to the south, hopefully one that lasts at least 6 to 10 or more months. She deserves to luxuriate in a place where common sense and civilized normalcy runs rampant.

    BTW, hardly surprising that Bolton is an appointee of a liberal/Democrat by the name of Bill Clinton. There are fools in the judiciary handing down dumb rulings year after year who originate from the era of Jimmy Carter’s White House.

    Liberalism is a gift that keeps on giving. A gift of diarrhea.

    Mark (411533)

  159. liberalism a
    lot like love in the time of
    dysentery

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  160. Can a nation be a nation when it doesn’t know who belongs to it? If a community is a community, it knows who belongs and who doesn’t. That doesn’t mean you beat up “strangers”, but you do act differently if it is Mr. Smith that you know at the playground with the kids or someone you’ve never seen before. If people act distrustful maybe it is because normal reasons for trust have been broken down. If I lived in a border state area where it is known there is human trafficing and drug smuggling I’d have to be a fool to live as if there were no such people, especially if the government authorities were not doing all they can to protect the public.

    If everybody in the US is a racist pig who has ill will toward others, then what difference does it make what the law is?

    There is an area in AZ that the Obama administration has essentially granted haven to foreign criminals. That is absurd, it should be de novo reason to impeach. While some of you are worrying about a police state, I’m worried about whether or not we’ll have a state. And if you do want to worry about a police state, I suggest you start with an administration that thinks it can over rule the will of the people at a whim.

    As said before, the law is not in conflict with fed law, it is in conflict with fed policy, while other laws and policies which are in conflict with fed law are being ignored. There is no principle of law here, it is purely political will of the individuals in power. Rule by men, not by law, that’s what we’ve got. We’re in pre-Magna Carta days.

    As an aside, from what I’ve heard it is pretty clear that fed tax dollars are now providing funds for abortion. This is after the one said, “Some are bearing false witness…” about such possibilities. It takes a pathological liar to lie using constructs like that. God may not throw lightening bolts directly too often, but invoking Scripture in an attempt to hide deceit will not be forgotten.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  161. What are some of the possible consequences of the ruling? Will anyone be allowed to vote now whether legal or not in AZ? Can people get on a plane refusing to show ID? Can someone cross the border and refuse to show ID? Is there any other country on earth that tolerates foreign nationals without credentials like we do?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  162. Never have a Prez
    who divide nation along
    racial lines like O

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  163. No, MD, nothing like that. This is a preliminary sort of thing. The required investigation of whether someone is a citizen or not is blocked. Thus, the state will not be IDing illegals and the fed won’t have to deal with them.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  164. As preliminary as it is, the opinion makes clear that the federal government will almost certainly prevail.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  165. cynical man who
    divide on race, class and
    sneering disrespect

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  166. Dustin, thanks for the response. It seems to me of fundamental principle that a state or any govt entity within a nation has the obligation to assist in policing the nation’s very existence as a nation. I would expect that twisting common sense would cause a ripple effect of unexpected absurdities.

    I hope Weber and co have ideas to wear the feds out making them chase trivia.

    A person has both a right and an obligation to have authority over their own property and place of residence. A nation does like wise.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  167. this will go all way
    to Supreme Court not settled
    by very long shot

    ColonelHaiku (ac3c3c)

  168. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form.

    May I point out that anonymous denunciations are a classic feature of police states?

    Nor do I see how it will actually reduce the violence connected to human and drug smugglers. They’ll be operating just as before.

    kishnevi (391c85)

  169. ==Is there any other country on earth that tolerates foreign nationals without credentials like we do==

    Not any country abroad that I’ve ever traveled to, MD in Philly. That passport gets whipped out a lot. And I never realized before this discussion how offended and full if umbrage I should be. And you know what else? The blond Germans have to “show their papers” to the blond Dutch authorities when they cross the border into Holland and vice-versa.

    elissa (d824dd)

  170. “May I point out that anonymous denunciations are a classic feature of police states?

    Nor do I see how it will actually reduce the violence connected to human and drug smugglers. They’ll be operating just as before.

    Comment by kishnevi — 7/28/2010 @ 8:36 pm ”

    You don’t see how this would interfere with human smuggling? It already did, since illegals were leaving instead of coming.

    And really, you could always report an illegal to the authorities. This law merely makes clear that it doesn’t impact that. It’s a pretty tame complaint, IMO. Comparing that to a police state is off the wall.

    You do realize this isn’t like calling the Savak to inform on an apostate, right?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  171. They are all very racist, elissa. Very racist.

    JD (d55760)

  172. Dustin

    You are not A LIAR, the point is that you, me anyone could not know or research all the laws, procedures in AZ and the federal precedents and make sweeping statements that we all as bloggers tend to do

    the point is states cannot assume federal powers no matter how compelling the argument

    The ballot box is where change is made on federal issues

    EricPWJohnson (824b4c)

  173. Eric, you called me a liar, bud. I don’t mean to complain… I honestly don’t mind and probably dish out as much as I take, but you denied that I was honest when I said I read the opinion.

    At least you see the endgame. You democrats will lose in November partly because, for Brewer, this isn’t, as you claimed, about the benjamins.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  174. So, again, you were just making things up?

    JD (d55760)

  175. Elissa: border controls between Germany and the Netherlands were mostly dismantled more than a dozen years ago as part of the EU common border policy. I have gone from the Croatian border to the Netherlands in a car, and from Portugal to Germany on a train, and had no border controls whatsoever.

    So no – for some time now, the Dutch have not had to show their passports when entering Germany.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  176. You don’t see how this would interfere with human smuggling? It already did, since illegals were leaving instead of coming.

    The coyotes will simply extend their route to Colorado or wherever. It may make the life of their “clients” harder, but not make their life harder. And it will be a reason for them to charge even more.

    This law merely makes clear that it doesn’t impact that. It’s a pretty tame complaint, IMO. Comparing that to a police state is off the wall.

    No it’s not. Suppose you’re a businessman in Arizona–someone who abides by the laws, hires only legal residents, etc. Anyone who has a grudge against you can make a denunciation and put you through the hassle of proving your innocence.

    And the text of the statute seems to indicate that the whole complaint form business is something new.
    You do realize this isn’t like calling the Savak to inform on an apostate, right?

    Savak was the Shah’s police. I’m assuming you meant the current Iranian regime’s counterpart to Savak.

    And guess what? There is no real difference. That the penal consequences are less severe does not change the fact that both are essentially the same thing–denouncing a fellow citizen for a crime that shouldn’t ever be considered a crime–in this case employing people who want to work.

    kishnevi (c89e0a)

  177. “I have gone from the Croatian border to the Netherlands in a car, and from Portugal to Germany on a train, and had no border controls whatsoever.”

    aphrael – When the North American Union is established, perhaps we can experience something similar in North America. Heh.

    Meanwhile, outside of the EU, where is such an experience possible?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  178. “denouncing a fellow citizen for a crime that shouldn’t ever be considered a crime–in this case employing people who want to work.

    Comment by kishnevi ”

    Well, we disagree on that. I can respect where you’re coming from on this point, but it’s illegal for good reasons.

    I want those employing illegals to be punished. And those paying them less than minimum or otherwise exploiting them to go to prison.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  179. Daleyrocks: my point was that elissa’s statement about the state of European border policy is simply flat out wrong. It was offered to correct a factual innaccuracy, not as an answer to your question. :)

    Canada will allow me into the country without a passport – I only need one to go to Canada because the US wants it for me to return.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  180. aphrael, the sword cuts both ways. Yes, you pointed out that elissa’s statement is out of date. And daleyrocks pointed out what the new reality looks like, one that the majority of us don’t want.

    If Obama was honest enough to say, “Look, we’re going to make over 50% of the US population dependent on the government for handouts to buy their votes, and we’re going to let millions of Mexicans vote too.”, then people could decide if that is the transformation they want.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  181. “Daleyrocks: my point was that elissa’s statement about the state of European border policy is simply flat out wrong. It was offered to correct a factual innaccuracy, not as an answer to your question. :)”

    aphrael – I understood that, but the EU has not had its internal arrangements in place for that long and is a unique arrangement. That is why I asked if you could think of other examples. With respect to Canada, if you were not an American citizen, would they let you in without a passport or other ID?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  182. Oh, BTW, FoxNews is reporting that the City of Tucson (among others) is having to remove signs from parks, etc, that state that the carrying of a concealed weapon is only allowed with a permit; since, effective 7/29/2010, no permit is required for the LAWFUL concealed carry of a gun in AZ – something else that came out of the AZ Legislature this year, and AZ joins VT and AK in “Constitutional Carry”, though permits are still available (as in AK) for those residents who wish to carry in States that have reciprocal agreements with AZ.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  183. EU…passports have to be carried in many of these countries as you have to surrender them to the hotel front desk when checking in so that they may be examined by the Police when they compile their foreign visitor logs.
    Kind of puts a kink in anyone’s plans to skip on the bill too.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f0ce5a)

  184. Aphrael is right.

    EU does not require passports from citizens of its member countries. The respective national IDs are enough for “interstate” travel.

    More than that, the entry port can be the first EU place you land on for non-EU citizens. For example, I (US citizen) travelled to Greece and went through passport control in Milan, Italy. In Athens, Greece, after my connecting flight, I might as well have been going from New York to Chicago. No Greek customs or immigration control. (I needed a stamp on my US passport for proof of entry into Greece (never mind why) and I could not get a Greek to give me one. It turned out to be a little bit of a humorous story later.)

    nk (db4a41)

  185. This is just a temporary injunction, and hardly a surprise from a Clinton appointee. It’s not losing the war, or even a serious battle – more like a brief skirmish.

    Adjoran (ec6a4b)

  186. I regret that my earlier comment about the Dutch and Germans which was meant merely as cutesy snark failed so miserably and has turned into a discussion of the EU. The failing experiment known as the EU (which incidentally I cannot be blamed for) has little or nothing to do with our illegal immigration situation and the duties/obligations/rights of American citizens and visitors. The current rules for the documentation of temporary residents and tourists in the USA are quite clear, have been on the books for a while, and too frequently have not been enforced. Why is simply enforcing our laws a problem for so many people?

    Thank you MD in Philly for getting to the real meat of the issue in comment #180. It would be nice if more of our citizenry would focus on that aspect. And, Patterico’s new post this morning lays it all out rather succinctly and somberly.

    elissa (d824dd)

  187. daleyrocks: with respect to Canada, probably not.

    But it is extremely common for countries to have arrangements which allow citizens of neighboring countries to enter without passport – small-scale cross-border trade is greatly facilitated by it, for one thing.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  188. aphrael, it would be very nice if the only traffic going across the US-Mexico border was for legitimate business and visiting of family, but it is not the case.

    For 10 years we lived back-to back in row homes in Philadelphia with our best friends, we did a lot of going in each others back door without even waiting for permission. Just because we gave that privilege to each other there was no precedent to make it ok for an armed intruder to come in.

    You are putting up examples of how nice things can be to show how the concern is unnecessary. In some places people don’t lock their cars, or their homes at night; they let the kids out the door in the morning to go and play with friends in the neighborhood and have no idea exactly where they are until they step out at the door before lunch and give a yell. Just because some people do those things in some places is no rational argument for the same practice to be used elsewhere under very different circumstances.

    A specific question for all. Didn’t the judge rule that immigrants were not required to have documentation on them? But isn’t this federal law, how can she make a ruling which voids a federal law??

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  189. Comment by aphrael — 7/29/2010 @ 8:31 am

    We have such arrangements in place along our souther border to facilitate the easy cross-border traffic of persons in TJ/San Diego, Mexicali/Calexico, Nogales, Juarez/El Paso, Laredo, etc.
    But, you have to register with the authorities and be issued an ID card, just like getting one of those automatic toll devices so that you don’t have to stop at the toll booth.
    But, that’s a lawful process, something that illegals (and criminals) don’t avail themselves of because their intent is not lawful commerce, but illegal conduct.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3c90d0)

  190. “But it is extremely common for countries to have arrangements which allow citizens of neighboring countries to enter without passport”

    aphrael – Where it is done is it usually not at established border crossing stations where officials can question people about the purpose of their visits if they so desire?

    daleyrocks (940075)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9731 secs.